is not defined by statute. And, the Court of Appeals “Similar fashion” 3 has declined to a set of criteria to define the requirements of the “fashion that . . would ignore the relative statutory phrase,” stating “[t]o do so . nature and contextual considerations inherent in any analysis and application of the People v. Mateo, 93 NY2d 327, ‘similarity’ element.” (1999). The Court has, however, explained that is the “[w]hat counts similarity of the conduct, not whether it occurred before or after the victim’s death. People v. Shulman, 6 NY3d 1, 16 (2005).
3 “Similar fashion” is not defined by statute. And, the Court of Appeals has declined to “fashion a set of criteria to define the requirements of the statutory phrase,” stating that “[t]o do so . . . would ignore the relative nature and contextual considerations inherent in any analysis and application of the ‘similarity’ element.” People v. Mateo, 93 NY2d 327, (1999). The Court has, however, explained that “[w]hat counts is the similarity of the conduct, not whether it occurred before or after the victim’s death. People v. Shulman, 6 NY3d 1, 16 (2005).
125-27(1)(a)(xi).docx