People v. Parker

CourtNew York Court of Special Sessions
Citation274 N.Y.S.2d 38,51 Misc.2d 843
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Murray PARKER, Defendant.
Decision Date28 September 1966

Page 38

274 N.Y.S.2d 38
51 Misc.2d 843
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Murray PARKER, Defendant.
Court of Special Sessions, Village of Scarsdale, Westchester County.
Sept. 28, 1966.

Page 39

[51 Misc.2d 844] Leonard Rubenfeld, Dist. Atty., O'Neil Kelly, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.

Frank E. Behrman, Mount Vernon, for defendant.

JOHN M. FRIEDMAN, Police Justice.

Defendant is charged by his wife with violation of Penal Law § 1292--a in sending her a check for $45.00 on October 4 or 5, 1965, for support pursuant to court order, when he had insufficient funds in the drawee bank to cover the check. The statute provides in pertinent part that one

Page 40

'* * * who, with intent to defraud, shall make or draw or utter or deliver any check * * * knowing at the time * * * that the maker or drawer has not sufficient funds in * * * (the) bank * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; * * *. In any prosecution under this section * * * the making, drawing, uttering or delivering of a check, draft or order, payment of which is refused by the drawee because of lack of funds or credit, shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud and of knowledge of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank * * *.'

The People proved that defendant drew a check to the order of the complainant for $45.00, dated October 2, 1965, which he mailed in New York City to complainant in Scarsdale on October 4 or 5, 1965, which she received in Scarsdale and deposited in her bank there, and which was returned by the drawee bank for insufficient funds. At no time between October 2, 1965 and the time the check was returned were there sufficient funds in the bank to cover it.

While defendant testified that he meant to deposit sufficient funds to cover the check after he sent it, in accordance with his practise in maintaining his checking account, I do not believe he had such intent; at most, it was a hope to be able to do so. And even if he had it, such an intent would not be a defense to the charge; Knowledge of whether or not the bank balance was sufficient to cover the check provides the test.

I find, accordingly, that defendant has failed to overcome the prima facie effect given to his acts by the statute and that his guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

A substantial question of venue remains. This court has jurisdiction over offenses committed in Westchester County, but not elsewhere. Defendant made the check in New York City, which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • State v. Athans, No. 57200
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1973
    ...in State v. Breitenbach, 190 Kan. 189, 373 P.2d 601, 603--604); State v. Beam, 175 Kan. 814, 267 P.2d 509, 511(1); People v. Parker, 51 Misc.2d 843, 274 N.Y.S.2d 38, 41(5, 6); People v. Megladdery, 40 Cal.App.2d 643, 105 P.2d 385, The courts in Ex parte Myers and in State v. Parker, supra, ......
  • Brown v. Brown
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • October 27, 1966
    ...'A child born of parents who at any time prior or subsequent to the birth of said child shall have entered into a ceremonial marriage [51 Misc.2d 843] shall be deemed the legitimate child of both parents for all purposes of this article regardless of the validity of such This section follow......
2 cases
  • State v. Athans, No. 57200
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1973
    ...in State v. Breitenbach, 190 Kan. 189, 373 P.2d 601, 603--604); State v. Beam, 175 Kan. 814, 267 P.2d 509, 511(1); People v. Parker, 51 Misc.2d 843, 274 N.Y.S.2d 38, 41(5, 6); People v. Megladdery, 40 Cal.App.2d 643, 105 P.2d 385, The courts in Ex parte Myers and in State v. Parker, supra, ......
  • Brown v. Brown
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • October 27, 1966
    ...'A child born of parents who at any time prior or subsequent to the birth of said child shall have entered into a ceremonial marriage [51 Misc.2d 843] shall be deemed the legitimate child of both parents for all purposes of this article regardless of the validity of such This section follow......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT