People v. Mackey

• Decision Date: 30 December 1969
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. William F. MACKEY, Jr., Defendant.
• Court: New York District Court

Page 502

306 N.Y.S.2d 502

61 Misc.2d 799

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. William F. MACKEY, Jr., Defendant.

District Court, Suffolk County, Fifth District.

Dec. 30, 1969.

Ira W. Levy, Islip Town Atty., East Islip, for plaintiff; Bernard T. Callan, Brentwood, of counsel.

Arthur McCauley, Sayville, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

JOHN COPERTINO, Judge.

Defendant has been charged with violation of Article I, Section 1.5 f. of the Fire Prevention Code of the Town of Islip which became effective on August 9, 1965.

The pertinent part of the section provides as follows:

'Section 1.5. Orders to Eliminate Dangerous or Hazardous Conditions.

'Whenever any inspectors of the Bureau of Fire Prevention as mentioned in Section 1.4 shall find in any building or upon any premises dangerous conditions or materials as follows, he or they shall order such dangerous conditions or materials to be removed or remedied in such manner as may be specified by the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Prevention.

'Whenever any of the officers, members or inspectors of the Fire Department or Bureau of Fire Prevention as mentioned in section 1.4 shall find in any building or upon any premises dangerous or hazardous conditions or materials as follows, he or they shall order such dangerous conditions or materials to be removed or remedied in such manner as may be specified by the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Prevention 'f. Any building or other structure which, for want of repairs, lack of adequate exit facilities, automatic or other fire alarm apparatus or fire extinguishing equipment or reason of age or dilapidated ^* condition, or from any other cause, creates a hazardous condition.'

Article 31 a. provides:

'Any person violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof be punishable by a fine not to exceed fifty dollars for each offense or by imprisonment in the County Jail, or by both fine and imprisonment.'

The information giving rise to this action reads:

'That the said defendant on the 20th day of April 1969 at the Hamlet of Sayville in the Town of Islip County of Suffolk, N.Y. at about 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of said day, did commit the offense of violating Article 1, Section 1.5F Fire Prevention Code Town of Islip against the person or property of the People of the State of New York by wrongfully, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence did cause allow and permit a fire gutted building located at #119 Railroad Avenue, Sayville, New York to remain in a hazardous condition in violation of aforementioned Town of Islip Fire Prevention Code.'

The defendant has demurred to the information on the 'grounds * * * that the information is insufficient * * *'

The People contend that this ground is not within the grounds set forth in Code of Cr.Proc. § 323 and that this section is inapplicable to informations.

While Code of Cr.Proc. § 62 does not make § 321 applicable to courts of special sessions, there is ample authority to permit these courts to treat a demurrer as a motion to dismiss the information for insufficiency (People v. Lee, 151 Misc. 431, 432--433, 272 N.Y.S. 817, 819, 820; and People v. Goldstein, 192 Misc. 337, 338--339, 78 N.Y.S.2d 256, 258--259). If such a motion is resolved against the People, they may--if they so desire--appeal (Code of Cr.Proc. 518, subd. 3; People v. Levenstein, 309 N.Y. 433, 131 N.E.2d 719; People v. De Courcy, 8 N.Y.2d 192, 203 N.Y.S.2d 817, 168 N.E.2d 646; and People v. Marra, 13 N.Y.2d 18, 20--21, 241 N.Y.S.2d 409, 410--411, 191 N.E.2d 792, 793--794).

The information merely charges that defendant permitted 'a fire gutted building * * * to remain in a hazardous condition in violation of' the Islip Code. One of the essential elements of the offense charged is that an order was issued to remove or remedy dangerous conditions or materials and that said order was not complied with. The information is silent as to any such order. The question is whether the omission is fatal.

The People maintain that the offense charged is a violation and that, therefore, the information need not be as exact nor need it state all the essential elements as an information charging a misdemeanor (People v. Hipple, 263 N.Y. 242, 188 N.E. 725, and People v. Jerome, 8 Misc.2d 883, 887, 168 N.Y.S.2d 452, 456).

The People's contention that the offense charged is a violation by virtue of Penal Law § 55.10, Subd. 3 is questioned.

Paragraph (a) of Subdivision 3 refers to offenses outside the Penal Law regardless of designation where the sentence provided for is a fine only or imprisonment not in excess of fifteen days. It would appear that the offense involved is not governed by Paragraph (a) of Subdivision 3 because the ordinance does not specifically prescribe a sentence of imprisonment that...