People v. Lawson
| Decision Date | 20 May 1965 |
| Citation | 16 N.Y.2d 552,260 N.Y.S.2d 661,208 N.E.2d 466 |
| Parties | , 208 N.E.2d 466 PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Joseph LAWSON et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, 44 Misc.2d 578, 254 N.Y.S.2d 300.
The defendants were charged with the offense of intrusion on realty in violation of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, § 2036. Evidence was introduced that defendants entered renting office of apartment building and refused to leave when real estate manager requested serveral times that they do so. The defendants were convicted of intrusion on realty. The Criminal Court of City of New York, 38 Misc.2d 611, 238 N.Y.S.2d 839, entered judgment, and the defendants appealed.
The Appellate Term, 44 Misc.2d 578, 254 N.Y.S.2d 300, reversed the judgment and dismissed the information.
The People of the State of New York appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, contending that the Appellate Term was clearly in error when it held that Section 2036 of the Penal Law makes criminal only an unauthorized entry on realty.
Frank S. Hogan, New York City (H. Richard Uviller, Joseph A. Phillips, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Carl Rachlin, George Schiffer, New York City (Stephen M. Nagler, Marvin Karpatkin, Percy Sutton, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Order affirmed upon the opinion at the Appellate Term.
All concur except VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and SCILEPPI, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse and to reinstate the conviction of the defendants upon the ground that the word 'intrude' under section 2036 of the Penal Law includes remaining upon the premises after having been ordered lawfully to vacate (People v. Stevens, 109 N.Y. 159, 16 N.E. 53; Restatement of the Law of Torts, sections 77-b and 158; Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts, p. 89.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Horelick v. Criminal Ct., City of NY
...charged that his presence is unauthorized. People v. Lawson, 44 Misc.2d 578, 254 N.Y.S.2d 300 (App.Term 1964), aff'd, 16 N.Y.2d 552, 260 N.Y.S.2d 661, 208 N.E.2d 466 (1965) (prosecution under § 140.10's predecessor, Penal Law § 2036). The Appellate Division cogently summarized the laws of t......
-
People v. Segal
...unlawfully, which is not relevant to the facts in this case. People v. Lawson, 44 Misc.2d 578, 254 N.Y.S.2d 300, aff'd, 16 N.Y.2d 552, 260 N.Y.S.2d 661, 208 N.E.2d 466, interpreted Sec. 2036 of the old Penal Law which did not make criminal refusal to leave premises lawfully entered, but cov......
-
People v. Williams
...his duty (former Penal Law § 1851). On appeal to the Appellate Term, the People conceded under the authority of People v. Lawson, 16 N.Y.2d 552, 260 N.Y.S.2d 661, 208 N.E.2d 466, that the convictions for unlawful intrusion must be reversed because the original entry into the building was la......
- People v. D'Iorio