- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- People v. Symns
- Docket
- 2025-06138
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03325
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
A grand jury indicted Kelechi Symns on two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of robbery in the second degree for allegedly acting in concert with two other individuals to rob the complainant at gunpoint. The evidence before the grand jury revealed the following: a few days before the robbery, Symns was told by two acquaintances that they intended to rob the complainant, whom Symns knew. On the day of the robbery, Symns picked up his two accomplices and told them he planned to meet the complainant at a park to smoke marijuana. One accomplice reiterated the plan to rob the complainant and displayed a firearm.
Symns then drove the accomplices toward the park and dropped them off nearby. He met the complainant in the park and hung out in the complainant’s vehicle. The two accomplices then approached, pointed a firearm at the complainant, and forced him out of the car. Symns was not forced to the ground and “went along with it.” The accomplices searched the vehicle and took $3,000 in cash. After the accomplices fled, Symns told the complainant he would look for them, then drove off, picked up his still-masked accomplices, and dropped them at another location. Symns did not receive any of the stolen cash and later convinced the complainant not to report the robbery.
The County Court, Suffolk County granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for legally insufficient evidence before the grand jury. The People appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the County Court’s order, denied the motion to dismiss, reinstated the indictment, and remitted the matter for further proceedings. The court applied the standard for grand jury sufficiency, which requires only “prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” and permits logical inferences from the evidence.
The court found the evidence legally sufficient to support the robbery charges under an acting-in-concert theory pursuant to Penal Law § 20.00. Under that statute, a person is criminally liable for another’s conduct when, “acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct.” The court found that Symns’s conduct — knowing of the planned robbery, driving the accomplices to the scene, meeting the complainant to facilitate the ambush, acquiescing during the robbery, driving the accomplices away afterward, and discouraging the complainant from reporting the crime — was sufficient at the prima facie level to establish that he intentionally aided the robbery.
Takeaways
This decision provides a robust application of the acting-in-concert doctrine in the grand jury context. The defendant’s role as a facilitator — rather than a direct perpetrator — was sufficient to support the indictment. The evidence showed that Symns knowingly served as the lure, the driver, and the getaway, even if he did not personally use force or receive proceeds from the robbery. The fact that he “went along with it” and took affirmative steps before, during, and after the robbery provided ample basis for the grand jury to indict.
The decision also reinforces the low standard of proof required at the grand jury stage. Courts reviewing grand jury sufficiency do not weigh evidence or consider innocent inferences — they need only determine whether the evidence, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would support a verdict after trial. This standard makes it difficult for defendants to obtain dismissal of indictments based on sufficiency challenges.
Why It Matters
For prosecutors, this case validates the use of acting-in-concert liability to charge facilitators of violent crimes, even when the facilitator does not personally commit the violent acts. The decision confirms that knowledge of the planned crime, combined with conduct that facilitates its commission before, during, and after the event, provides a sufficient basis for indictment. For defense attorneys, the reversal of the County Court’s dismissal serves as a reminder that grand jury sufficiency challenges face an uphill battle — the standard is deliberately low, and most sufficiency arguments are better reserved for trial or post-trial proceedings.