New York Self Defense Laws

New York Self Defense Laws

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group – managed by Todd Spodek, a second-generation law firm with over 40 years of combined experience defending clients in New York assault, homicide, and weapons cases. New York’s self-defense laws impose one of the strictest standards in the country: **duty to retreat**. Before using deadly force, you must attempt to flee or withdraw from the confrontation if you can do so with *complete personal safety*. New York adopted this requirement in 1968, and only about 13 states maintain similar restrictions. Unlike stand-your-ground states where you have no obligation to retreat before defending yourself, New York requires you to exhaust safe retreat options first – except when you’re in your own dwelling and weren’t the initial aggressor (Castle Doctrine).

When you invoke self-defense after being charged with assault, manslaughter, or murder, prosecutors scrutinize every detail to disprove your claim. Did you reasonably believe you faced deadly force? Was retreat safely possible? Did your response match the threat level? Were you the initial aggressor? These questions transform straightforward self-defense claims into complex factual disputes where prosecutors cherry-pick evidence to undermine your reasonable belief. New York Penal Law Article 35 establishes justification as a complete defense – but only when you meet every statutory element, and prosecutors fight self-defense claims aggressively because successful assertions result in acquittal.

Duty to Retreat: The Core Requirement

New York Penal Law §35.15 authorizes deadly physical force only when you reasonably believe another person is using or about to use deadly force against you. But there’s a critical restriction: **”A person may not use deadly physical force… if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating.”** This is the duty to retreat – you must flee the confrontation if you can do so safely before resorting to deadly force.

Consider what this means in practice:

• **Bar fight escalation:** Someone threatens you with a broken bottle. You’re near the exit. Under New York law, you must attempt to leave through the exit if you can reach it safely before using deadly force in response.
• **Street confrontation:** Someone displays a knife and threatens to stab you. You can run in the opposite direction. New York requires you to run before using deadly force to defend yourself.
• **Domestic dispute:** Your partner grabs a weapon during an argument. If you can safely exit the apartment and call police, New York requires retreat before using deadly force.

Prosecutors exploit the duty to retreat by second-guessing your assessment of safe retreat opportunities. You claimed you couldn’t safely flee? Prosecutors will reconstruct the scene, identify possible escape routes, argue you could have retreated without risk. You believed retreating would expose you to attack? Prosecutors will claim a “reasonable person” would have assessed the situation differently. The duty to retreat transforms self-defense into a factual inquiry about what escape options existed and whether you reasonably concluded retreat was unsafe.

Castle Doctrine: The Home Exception

The Castle Doctrine creates an exception to the duty to retreat when you’re in your dwelling: **”the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor.”** If someone breaks into your home or threatens you inside your residence, you don’t need to flee to another room or exit your house before using deadly force to defend yourself. This recognizes that your home is your refuge – you shouldn’t be required to abandon it to satisfy retreat requirements.

But prosecutors limit Castle Doctrine protections by challenging whether the location qualifies as your “dwelling” and whether you were the “initial aggressor.” Shared apartment with roommates? Prosecutors may argue only your bedroom qualifies as your dwelling, not common areas. Invited someone into your home who later became threatening? Prosecutors claim you voluntarily created the dangerous situation, losing Castle protection. Were you arguing with a domestic partner before they attacked? Prosecutors will characterize you as the initial aggressor even if the other person escalated to physical violence first.

At Spodek Law Group – we defend clients who used force in their homes and face prosecutors trying to strip Castle Doctrine protections through narrow interpretations of “dwelling” and “initial aggressor.” Your defense requires establishing that the location qualified as your dwelling under New York law and that you didn’t instigate the violence requiring defensive force.

Reasonableness: Subjective Belief vs. Prosecutor Reconstruction

New York’s self-defense law authorizes force when you “reasonably believe” another person is using or about to use deadly force. This is a subjective standard – what *you* believed at the moment, not what hindsight reveals. But prosecutors transform reasonableness into an objective inquiry by questioning whether a hypothetical “reasonable person” in your situation would have shared your belief.

Self-defense claims fail when prosecutors convince juries your belief wasn’t reasonable:

• **Mistaken threat perception:** You believed the person was reaching for a gun, but they were reaching for a phone. Prosecutors argue a reasonable person would have waited to confirm the threat before responding.
• **Verbal threats without action:** Someone threatened to kill you but hadn’t made any physical move. Prosecutors claim verbal threats alone don’t justify deadly force because the person wasn’t “using or about to use” deadly force yet.
• **Prior relationship context:** You had history with the person and knew they’d threatened violence before. Prosecutors argue this context should have informed your assessment, making your fear unreasonable if the current situation didn’t objectively warrant it.

The reasonableness standard requires juries to evaluate split-second decisions from your perspective – but prosecutors present their reconstruction slowly, with witnesses, photographs, measurements, expert testimony. By the time juries deliberate, prosecutors have transformed your reasonable fear into paranoia, your defensive response into aggression. Todd Spodek’s defense of Anna Delvey showed what vigorous advocacy looks like when prosecutors construct narratives based on selective evidence. They wanted to portray her as a calculating fraudster. Spodek forced them to prove specific intent for each charge. Self-defense cases work similarly – prosecutors present you as the aggressor, defense must reconstruct your reasonable perception from that moment.

Proportionality: Force Must Match Threat

New York limits deadly force to situations where you face *deadly* force. Penal Law §35.15 authorizes deadly force only when you reasonably believe the other person is using or about to use deadly physical force, or is committing/attempting kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act, or robbery. If the threat doesn’t rise to that level, you can’t use deadly force – even if you face imminent violence.

Proportionality disputes arise when force levels don’t match:

• **Fistfight vs. weapon:** Someone attacks you with fists. You respond with a knife. Prosecutors argue fists don’t constitute deadly force, making your knife use disproportionate and unjustified.
• **Disparity of force:** A much smaller, weaker person attacks you. You’re larger, stronger, trained in combat. You use force that seriously injures them. Prosecutors claim the physical disparity meant you didn’t face deadly force requiring deadly response.
• **Threat vs. action:** Someone displays a weapon but hasn’t used it yet. You shoot them. Prosecutors argue they were “about to use” deadly force is speculative – they merely possessed the capability, not imminent intent.

Defense requires establishing that the force you used matched the threat you faced. If someone attacked you with hands but you reasonably believed those blows could kill you (due to their size, strength, training, or the vulnerability of where they struck), that justifies deadly force response. If they displayed a weapon, your reasonable belief they were “about to use” it justifies preemptive deadly force – you don’t need to wait until they actually strike.

Initial Aggressor Doctrine Strips Self-Defense Rights

You cannot claim self-defense if you were the initial aggressor – the person who provoked or initiated the confrontation requiring defensive force. New York Penal Law §35.15 states you lose justification if “with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he provokes the use of deadly physical force by such other person.” Prosecutors expand “initial aggressor” broadly to strip self-defense claims from anyone who contributed to the confrontation’s escalation.

Prosecutors characterize defendants as initial aggressors through:

• **Verbal provocation:** You insulted or challenged someone verbally. They responded with physical violence. Prosecutors claim your words provoked the physical confrontation, making you the initial aggressor.
• **Prior history:** You had previous conflicts with the person. Prosecutors argue you sought them out or continued engaging instead of avoiding contact, characterizing you as the aggressor even if they struck first.
• **Non-deadly escalation:** You pushed or shoved someone first (non-deadly force). They responded with deadly force. Prosecutors claim your initial push makes you the aggressor, stripping your right to defend against their disproportionate response.

Defense requires showing you didn’t provoke the use of deadly force – that the other person’s violent response was unprovoked or disproportionate to any initial conduct on your part. Even if you started a verbal argument, that doesn’t make you the initial aggressor if the other person independently chose to escalate to physical violence.

Burden Shifting Once You Claim Self-Defense

Technically, New York places the burden on prosecutors to disprove self-defense beyond reasonable doubt once you raise it. But practically, claiming self-defense shifts intense scrutiny onto your credibility and decision-making. Prosecutors will dissect:

• **Inconsistencies in your account:** Any variation between your initial police statement, subsequent interviews, and trial testimony gets portrayed as lies undermining your reasonable belief claim.
• **Physical evidence contradictions:** If forensic evidence (bullet trajectories, wound locations, blood spatter) doesn’t perfectly match your description, prosecutors argue you’re fabricating self-defense to justify murder.
• **Prior relationship context:** History with the victim – prior arguments, restraining orders, threats you made – gets used to show you weren’t defending yourself but were settling scores.
• **Your conduct after the incident:** Did you flee? Call police? Render aid? Prosecutors claim guilty consciousness if you fled, or lack of real fear if you didn’t immediately contact authorities.

At Spodek Law Group, we prepare clients for prosecutorial attacks on self-defense claims before they give statements. What you say to police immediately after using force will be scrutinized for inconsistencies. How you describe your fear, the threat you faced, and your reasons for not retreating becomes the foundation for your defense – or the prosecutor’s case against you. Your defense requires attorneys who understand New York’s self-defense elements and can establish reasonable belief, lack of safe retreat, proportionality, and non-aggressor status through evidence, not just your testimony. We’re available 24/7. Call us.