People v. Popack
| Decision Date | 27 February 1964 |
| Citation | 248 N.Y.S.2d 657,14 N.Y.2d 566,198 N.E.2d 44 |
| Parties | , 198 N.E.2d 44 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Samuel POPACK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department.
Defendant was convicted of unlawful intrusion on realty in violation of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, § 2036, by parking vehicles in driveway without authority of the owner.
The Criminal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, Harry Serper, J., at time of conviction, and Benjamin H. Schor, J., at time of sentence, entered judgment.
The Appellate Term affirmed the judgment.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, contending that an act, in order to be punishable under the Penal Law, § 2036, must involve a common law trespass and that trespass does not lie for the disturbance of an easement, and that defendant, as possessor of an easement for ingress and egress, had right to leave his vehicle on driveway if reasonably necessary for full enjoyment of his easement, and that to make trespass criminal, criminal mind and purpose must accompany act, and that proof that intrusion on the realty was without authority of the complainant, who merely had an easement, was at variance with charge of intrusion on land without authority of the owners.
Quint & Marx, Brooklyn, Wolf & Cyperstein, New York City (Nathan Cyperstein, New York City, of counsel; Philip Weiss, New York City, on reply brief), for defendant-appellant.
Edward W. Silver, Brooklyn (Raymond J. Scanlan, David Diamond and Harry Brodbar, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondents.
Judgment reversed and the information dismissed upon the ground that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cecere
...It is further distinguishable by constituting an extreme situation of the instant case. The defendant has cited People v. Popack, 14 N.Y.2d 566, 248 N.Y.S.2d 657, 198 N.E.2d 44 and People v. Barton, 18 A.D.2d 612, 234 N.Y.S.2d 263. I do not feel that either of these cases is controlling in ......
-
People v. Brown
...charged, and, specifically, the absence or loss of a statutory privilege or license to enter and remain (see People v. Popack, 14 N.Y.2d 566, 248 N.Y.S.2d 657, 198 N.E.2d 44; People v. Barton, 18 A.D.2d 612, 234 N.Y.S.2d 263), the judgment of conviction should be revered and the complaint F......
- Pomilla v. Great American Insurance Co.
- Lorenzo v. Center Kinney, Inc.