A New York court has overturned the conviction of Harvey Henry for attempted burglary, ruling that his legal counsel was ineffective during the plea process. This decision, announced on November 12, 2026, affects Henry and raises questions about the adequacy of legal representation in criminal cases.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in a case identified by docket number Ind No. 73152/23. The court found that Henry's attorney failed to adequately challenge the evidence presented to the grand jury, which ultimately led to Henry's guilty plea for attempted burglary and a three-year prison sentence.

Background

Harvey Henry was arrested on February 1, 2023, after entering a residential building on East 28th Street in Manhattan. The incident involved two 12-year-old twin sisters who lived in the building. They unlocked the front door, allowing Henry access. Once inside, Henry rode the elevator with the sisters and made them uncomfortable by complimenting their appearance and asking if their mother needed an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card.

The sisters reported their interaction with Henry to their mother, who then recorded a video of him as he exited the building. The police were called, and Henry was arrested after they found him in a stairway eating soup from a can. He faced charges of burglary in the second degree and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

Henry's defense attorney filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on insufficient evidence presented to the grand jury. However, the motion was denied, and Henry eventually pled guilty to burglary in exchange for a three-year prison sentence. He also waived his right to appeal as part of the plea agreement.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Moulton, Kennedy, Friedman, Michael, and Hagler, unanimously reversed Henry's conviction. The court stated that it was acting in the interest of justice, vacating the judgment and dismissing the indictment against him. The judges emphasized that the evidence presented to the grand jury did not sufficiently establish that Henry intended to commit a crime upon entering the building.

The court ruled, "Defendant's insufficiency argument would have had merit had counsel taken the opportunity to marshal and analyze the evidence presented to the grand jury."

The judges noted that while the grand jury established that Henry unlawfully entered the building, the evidence did not support the claim that he intended to commit a crime. The court highlighted that Henry's comments to the sisters, while unsettling, did not meet the legal threshold for endangering the welfare of a child.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Henry, who will no longer face the charges that led to his conviction. It also raises broader questions about the responsibilities of defense attorneys in ensuring that their clients receive fair representation. The court's decision underscores the importance of adequately challenging the prosecution's evidence during the grand jury process.

The ruling may set a precedent for similar cases where defendants argue ineffective assistance of counsel. It highlights the necessity for attorneys to thoroughly analyze evidence and advocate for their clients' rights, particularly in cases involving serious charges like burglary.

What's Next

Henry's case has been sent back to the lower court, where the charges against him have been dismissed. It is unclear if the prosecution will pursue the case further or if any related cases are pending. The court filing did not provide details on any potential appeals or future proceedings.