New York Court of Appeals, 2005

The Court affirmed defendant’s conspiracy conviction, holding that statements made at the alleged planning meeting were admissible as verbal acts proving agreement, while a later coconspirator statement was admissible for its truth because independent evidence established a prima facie conspiracy.

The court held that a defendant standing in the doorway between an apartment and a common hall has a duty under Penal Law § 35.15 to retreat into the apartment before using deadly physical force when retreat can be accomplished with complete safety.