Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A woman who watched her 87-year-old mother fall down the stairs and left her there for five hours should face manslaughter charges for the mother’s eventual death, New York’s Appellate Division, 2nd Department ruled Friday. The manslaughter case involving Paula Sanford began two years ago in her Brooklyn apartment building. Sanford, a geriatric nurse, told investigators that she had an argument with her mother, Clarice Gray, who was yelling at Sanford and pointing a finger at her. Sanford said she grabbed her mother’s finger; when the woman pulled it away, she fell down the stairs. Sanford said she tried to help her mother, but was told, “Get out of here.” Sanford then left the house to run errands. She returned five hours later and found her mother, who was suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease and had a heart condition, a hip injury and arthritis, dead at the bottom of the stairs. Sanford tried to resuscitate the woman and then called 911. When first questioned about bruises on Gray’s body, Sanford told police that her mother bruised easily because she took blood thinners. But she later admitted that Ms. Gray had last taken such medication four years earlier. An autopsy of the woman revealed fractured ribs, contusions of the right lung and extensive bruising. The cause of death was determined to be blunt impact injuries to the torso. The Brooklyn district attorney’s office indicted Sanford on charges of manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, reckless endangerment and assault. Sanford challenged the indictment, and in April 2004 Acting Supreme Court Justice Matthew J. D’Emic said the woman was guilty of poor judgment, but not manslaughter. “Ms. Sanford’s leaving for five hours was a mistake, causing the direst consequence,” Justice D’Emic wrote. “Yet, it was not criminal.” In a brief ruling last week in People v. Sanford, a unanimous 2nd Department panel reversed. The appeals court determined that the evidence against Sanford could support a guilty verdict if unexplained and uncontradicted at a trial. “Thus, the indictment should not have been dismissed,” the court wrote. Justices David S. Ritter, Gloria Goldstein, Peter B. Skelos and Robert A. Lifson concurred on the ruling. Assistant District Attorneys Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall and Ruth E. Ross appeared for the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office. Christopher Renfroe, who represented Sanford, declined to comment.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.