People v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 20 March 1963
• Docket Number: II-B
• Citation: 38 Misc.2d 611,238 N.Y.S.2d 839
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Joseph LAWSON, Velma Hill, Vicki Morris, Wesley Sutton, Stevens Clarke, and Kurt Flasher, Defendants
• Court: New York City Court

Page 839

238 N.Y.S.2d 839

38 Misc.2d 611

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Joseph LAWSON, Velma Hill, Vicki Morris, Wesley Sutton Stevens Clarke, and Kurt Flasher, Defendants.

Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, Part II-B.

March 20, 1963.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York County, for the People (Robert J. Lehner and Joseph A. Phillips, Asst. Dist. Attys., of counsel). Percy E. Sutton, O. T. Wells, New York City, and William Chance, New York City, for defendants (George Donald Covington, Oliver C. Sutton, New York City, and Kenneth Browne, of counsel).

BENJAMIN GASSMAN, Judge.

In a one count information filed by the District Attorney of New York County, each of the defendants is charged with a violation of Section 2036 of the Penal Law. The information alleges that on or about the 14th day of February, 1963, the defendants unlawfully intruded upon a certain lot and piece of land, and a building thereon, at 50 West 96th Street, in the City and County of New York, without authority from the owner.

Upon the trial, the complainant, Robert Nieman testified that on the 14th day of February, 1963, he maintained a real estate management office at 50 West 96th Street, New York City, a 16 story apartment building owned by his wife; that such office, about 18 feet by 20 feet was located in the basement of said building and was accessible either through the service entrance or through stairs leading from the lobby. That on February 13, 1963, the defendant Stevens Clarke spoke to him about renting an apartment, No. 1-B in premises 78 Manhattan Avenue, New York, which was managed by the complainant, and that the said defendant made an application for the rental of said apartment.

He testified further that on February 14, 1963, at about 3:45 P.M. the defendant Clarke came into his office and inquired whether that apartment was still vacant, and was told that it was. Defendant Clarke then asked the complainant to show him a form lease. Nieman showed him a form of lease, which Clarke perused for a period of 3 to 5 minutes; that while Clarke was reading that lease, the defendants Joseph Lawson, Velma Hill and Vicki Morris entered the office together with another man, later identified as Mr. Quinones. The defendant Clarke then told the complainant that he decided not to take that apartment and that he transferred his rights to that apartment to the defendant Lawson. Nieman then told Clarke that he had no right to transfer any apartment. It should be noted at this point that the defendant Clarke is white and that the defendant Lawson is colored. The defendant Velma Hill then told the complainant that she represents 'CORE' and she handed several leaflets to him, one of which is in evidence as People's Exhibit 1. Nieman asked the said four defendants to leave the office, but they refused to do so. At that point, the man, identified as Quinones asked the complainant whether he refused to lease the apartment to defendant Lawson, and when Nieman replied that he did, Quinones served a subpoena upon him. Nieman told Quinones that he was surprised to see a City official taking part in such a demonstration. Nieman again requested the said four defendants to leave his office, but they refused to do so and remained there. Quinones, however, left the office, saying to the said four defendants that they were on their own.

Nieman called the police and Patrolman McInerny arrived in about 10 minutes. In the meantime, the defendants Wesley Sutton and Kurt Flasher entered the office and exchanged greetings with the other four defendants. Nieman showed the subpoena to the police officer and told him that he wanted the defendants out of his office. The police officer told the defendants: 'Now that the case is in court, why don't you go? You want others to obey the law, why don't you?' The defendants made no reply but remained in the office. Nieman told the defendants that it was after 5 P.M. and that he wanted to close the office, but the defendants refused to leave. At about 5:50 P.M. more police officers arrived and the defendants were arrested.

Kate Nieman, the wife of Robert Nieman testified that she was the owner of 50 West 96th Street, and that she did not give permission to any of the defendants to enter the said premises.

Patrolman John McInerny testified that, pursuant to a call, he arrived in complainant's office at about 4:40 P.M. on that day. He found the six defendants in the office. Nieman showed him the subpoena and told him that he wanted the defendants to leave the office. The police officer told the defendants that they had no right to remain there and that they should leave. He repeated that request to the defendants four times. He remained in that office about 45 minutes and then, at Nieman's request, arrested the defendants.

The defendants rested at the end of the People's case without offering any testimony.

The defendants contend that Section 2036 of the Penal Law does not apply to this case. They urge in their brief that 'nowhere in the reading of Section 2036, or the cases decided thereon, is there clear authority for the People's contention that the unauthorized entry onto property itself and remaining thereon against the wishes of the owner, but without exercising domain or control, or use of the property, is a criminal trespass'.

Such contention is without merit. We find, as a fact, that the defendants entered the complainant's office in a group; that they insisted on remaining there and did remain there for about two hours against the complainant's wishes. Such action was tantamount to intrusion upon complainant's premises unlawfully.

While research failed to disclose any decision in this State exactly in point, we conclude, nevertheless, that in acting as they did, the defendants violated both the letter and the spirit of Section 2036 of the Penal Law. That section, insofar as it applies to this case, provides that 'A person, who intrudes upon any lot or piece of land within the bounds of a city or village, without authority from the owner thereof, * * * is guilty of a misdemeanor'. The words 'lot or piece of land' used in the statute, have been interpreted as including buildings on such lot or piece of land. (People on Inf. Boynton v. Leiby, 184 Misc. 21, 52 N.Y.S.2d 493). The word 'intrude' means to unlawfully enter upon land or buildings or premises of another, by a person without authority, and remaining there against the wishes of the owner thereof.

When the defendants entered the complainant's office in a body and persisted in remaining there for over two hours against his wishes, disregarding his statement to them that he wished to close the office, they intruded upon his property. If their purpose in first entering that office was to force or induce the complainant to lease an apartment to defendant Lawson and, on failure thereof, to have a subpoena or other process served upon complainant, their purpose was concluded when the subpoena was served by Quinones. Their remaining in that office thereafter and their refusal to leave the office, when requested to do so by complainant and by the police officer, constituted an unlawful intrusion.

Apparently conceding the facts as testified to by the People's witnesses, the defendants nevertheless urge that they are not guilty of unlawful intrusion. They state in their brief that in enacting Section 2036 of the Penal Law 'the legislature did not intend to enact a law to apply to a temporary unauthorized entry by a person onto the premises of another'. They argue...