People v. Parker
| Decision Date | 28 September 1966 |
| Citation | 274 N.Y.S.2d 38,51 Misc.2d 843 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Murray PARKER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Special Sessions |
Leonard Rubenfeld, Dist. Atty., O'Neil Kelly, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.
Frank E. Behrman, Mount Vernon, for defendant.
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
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 is outside of Westchester. He mailed it in New York City, but it was received by complainant in Westchester. Where, then, did he 'deliver' it?
What the statute means by the word 'deliver' seems not to have been decided in New York, or elsewhere with respect to similar statutes. Where delivery is significant for other purposes, the word has been variously defined with respect to mailing, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Athans
... ... 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, 390(9) ... The courts ... ...
- Brown v. Brown