Article 35 of the New York Penal Law is the state’s use-of-force statute: it defines when conduct that would otherwise be a crime — hitting, shooting, restraining, or killing another person — is legally justified as self-defense, defense of others, defense of your home, defense of property, or force used by or with police officers. The sections run from 35.05 through 35.30, and they draw sharp lines between non-deadly and deadly force, between defending people and defending things, and between what a private citizen may do and what an officer may do.
Who Has to Prove What
Justification under Article 35 is an ordinary defense, not an affirmative defense. That single distinction changes how a case is tried. Once a defendant puts forward credible evidence that their use of force was justified, the prosecution must disprove the justification beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove the force was justified; the state has to prove it wasn’t.
Jury instructions in New York carry this through. If jurors have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant’s use of force was justified, they must acquit.1New York State Unified Court System. Justification – Use of Deadly Physical Force in Defense of a Person Prosecutors cannot ignore a justification claim and hope it fades; they have to affirmatively knock it down.
Non-Deadly Force to Defend Yourself or Someone Else
Section 35.15(1) is the core self-defense provision. You may use non-deadly physical force when you reasonably believe it is necessary to defend yourself or a third person from what you reasonably believe is the imminent use of unlawful physical force.2New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 35.15 – Justification; Use of Physical Force in Defense of a Person
“Reasonably believes” carries a double test. Your belief has to be genuine, and a reasonable person in the same circumstances has to have reached the same conclusion. A sincere belief that isn’t objectively reasonable will not carry the defense; neither will a coldly calculated response that you didn’t actually hold at the time.
Three situations take the defense away:
- You provoked the other person with intent to cause them physical injury.
- You were the initial aggressor. The exception here is if you clearly withdrew from the encounter, communicated that withdrawal to the other person, and they kept attacking anyway.
- The fight was combat by agreement — mutual, consensual — and not otherwise authorized by law.
The initial-aggressor rule is the one that drives most disputed cases, because the parties usually disagree about who started it.
Deadly Force and the Duty to Retreat
Section 35.15(2) narrows the field sharply for deadly physical force. You may use deadly force only when you reasonably believe the other person is using or about to use deadly force against you.2New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 35.15 – Justification; Use of Physical Force in Defense of a Person And even then, New York imposes a duty to retreat. If you know you can avoid using deadly force with complete safety to yourself and others by retreating, you must retreat first.
New York is not a stand-your-ground state on the street. The retreat requirement drops away in a limited set of situations:
- You are in your own dwelling and you were not the initial aggressor. This is the Castle Doctrine, and it means you don’t have to flee your own home before defending yourself with deadly force.3Cornell Law School. People v. Hernandez
- You are a police officer, peace officer, or a private citizen acting under an officer’s direction, operating under the arrest provisions of section 35.30.
- You reasonably believe the other person is committing or attempting kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible aggravated sexual abuse, or robbery.
- You reasonably believe the other person is committing or attempting a burglary, and the conditions in section 35.20(3) are met.
Those enumerated crimes are singled out because each one inherently involves violence or the imminent threat of it, so the statute treats the danger as self-evident and drops the retreat requirement.
Defending Your Home, Building, and Property
Sections 35.20 and 35.25 handle force used to protect places and things, and they draw a sharp line between a building and a bicycle.
Premises
Section 35.20 is tiered:4New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 35.20 – Justification; Use of Physical Force in Defense of Premises and in Defense of a Person in the Course of Burglary
- Anyone may use non-deadly force to stop what they reasonably believe is a crime damaging premises. Deadly force at this tier is limited to stopping arson.
- A person in possession or control of premises, or someone lawfully present, may use non-deadly force to stop a criminal trespass. Deadly force is reserved for arson or a qualifying burglary.
- A person in possession or control of a dwelling or occupied building may use deadly force when they reasonably believe someone is committing or attempting a burglary of that structure and deadly force is necessary to stop it.
The third tier is the strongest protection in the property sections. It effectively extends Castle Doctrine logic to any occupied building, not only a person’s own home.
Personal Property
Section 35.25 covers items like a car, a phone, a wallet, or a bike. You may use non-deadly force when you reasonably believe it is necessary to stop someone from committing larceny or criminal mischief against your property.5New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 35.25 – Justification; Use of Physical Force to Prevent or Terminate Larceny or Criminal Mischief Deadly force is not authorized under this section at all. If the only way to stop a thief is lethal force, the law expects you to let the property go.
Force for Discipline and Order
Section 35.10 authorizes non-deadly force in a handful of specific roles.6New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 35.10 – Justification; Use of Physical Force Generally Parents, guardians, and other people entrusted with the care of someone under twenty-one or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force to maintain discipline or promote the person’s welfare. Teachers and others entrusted with a minor for a specific purpose have the same authorization within that role.
The word carrying the weight is “reasonable.” Force that crosses into excessive territory exposes the adult to charges like child endangerment or assault, and the line is fact-intensive.
The same section authorizes wardens and correctional officers to maintain order in prisons and jails, and it lets common-carrier personnel — bus drivers, flight crew, and similar workers responsible for passenger safety — use physical force to maintain order on their vehicles or vessels.
Arrests: Resisting and Being Arrested
You Cannot Legally Resist
Section 35.27 is categorical: physical force may not be used to resist an arrest, authorized or unauthorized, being made by someone who reasonably appears to be a police or peace officer.7New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 35.27 – Justification; Use of Physical Force in Resisting Arrest Prohibited If the arrest turns out to be unlawful, the remedy is in court afterward, not in the street during the encounter.
When Officers May Use Force
Section 35.30 sets the rules for officers. A police or peace officer may use non-deadly physical force when reasonably necessary to make an arrest, prevent an escape, or defend against physical force.8New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 35.30 – Justification; Use of Physical Force in Making an Arrest or in Preventing an Escape
Deadly force by an officer is limited to three scenarios:
- The offense involved the use, attempted use, or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person, or was one of the enumerated serious felonies including kidnapping, arson, first-degree escape, or first-degree burglary.
- The suspect committed a felony and, while resisting arrest or attempting to escape, is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon.
- Regardless of the underlying offense, deadly force is necessary to defend the officer or another person from what the officer reasonably believes is the use or imminent use of deadly force.
Even where deadly force is otherwise justified, the statute does not extend justification to reckless conduct that endangers innocent bystanders.
Civilians Assisting an Officer
A private citizen directed by an officer to help with an arrest may use non-deadly force as reasonably necessary, unless the citizen knows the arrest is unauthorized. Deadly force by the assisting citizen is confined to self-defense or defense of others, or to situations where the officer specifically authorizes deadly force and the citizen does not know that authorization is improper.
The Choice of Evils Provision
Section 35.05 sits at the top of Article 35 and does two things. It justifies conduct that would otherwise be criminal when the conduct is required or authorized by law. And it recognizes a narrow necessity defense: conduct is justified when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury that is about to happen through no fault of the defendant, and that clearly outweighs the harm the criminal statute was designed to prevent.9New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 35.05 – Justification; Generally
The judge decides, as a matter of law, whether the facts the defendant claims could even qualify. The section also explicitly bars using necessity to challenge the morality of the law itself. You cannot break a law you disagree with and call it a choice of evils.
A Civil Lawsuit Is Still Possible
An acquittal on justification grounds ends the criminal case, but it does not automatically end civil exposure. New York has no statute granting civil immunity to people who use justified force. The injured party can still sue for damages in civil court, where the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A defense that convinced a criminal jury can fail in front of a civil one.
Homeowners liability insurance is a separate question. Standard policies exclude intentional injuries, and courts have split on whether self-defense injuries fall inside that exclusion or outside it because they weren’t “expected or intended” in the ordinary sense. Some newer policies carve out reasonable defensive force explicitly. Whether coverage applies to a self-defense incident comes down to the exact policy language and the court reading it.