Whether New York, by allowing consecutive sentences for the single continuous possession of the same firearm, ignored its own precedent in Johnson v. Morgenthau, misapplied decisions from this Court, and misinterpreted the intent of the legislature

QUESTIONS PRESENTED New York’s highest court has distinguished criminal possession of a weapon with the intent to use element, Penal Law § 265.03, from other weapon possession crimes defined in Article 265 of the Penal Law by finding that the single act of continuously displaying a weapon before two or more individuals during one criminal transaction can result in being charged with multiple counts that can lead to consecutive punishment. The questions presented are: 1. Whether New York, by allowing consecutive sentences for the single continuous possession of the same firearm, ignored its own precedent in Johnson v. Morgenthau, misapplied decisions from this Court, and misinterpreted the intent of the legislature. 2. Whether a single business robbery where two or more employees are threatened should be prosecuted and punished as a unitary transaction. 3. Whether a post-judgment motion can be summarily denied without articulating a sufficient basis for that denial. i