People v. Scandore
| Decision Date | 27 February 1958 |
| Citation | 3 N.Y.2d 681,148 N.E.2d 872,171 N.Y.S.2d 808 |
| Parties | , 148 N.E.2d 872 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Nicholas SCANDORE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Peter Campbell Brown, Corp. Counsel (Anthony Curreri and Seymour B. Quel, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Albert Finkelstein and Jacob W. Friedman, New York City, for respondent.
The People appeal here by have from a reversal by the Appellate Part of the Court of Special Sessions, New York City, of a conviction of defendant, in a Magistrate's Court, of five alleged violations of section 532-11.0 of the New York City Administrative Code and section 60 of the Rules and Regulations of the New York City Department of Parks. The alleged violations, which were amply established by the proof, consisted of the unlawful construction, within a restricted area and without a permit, of parts of a building. The complaints in the Magistrate's Court charged that defendant had done these unlawful acts. The grounds for the reversal were two: first, that the record did not establish that the violations were committed on the precise date alleged in the pleadings and, second, that there was no sufficient proof that defendant was the owner of the property on that date.
As to the first ground, it is enough to say that these continuing violations were clearly shown to have existed before and after the date alleged.
As to the second ground for reversal, we find in this record sufficient proof of ownership by this defendant as of the critical date. That fact was established by putting in evidence a deed to defendant of these premises, which deed was dated and recorded several years before the violations. Under the well-established presumption of continuance of ownership that proof was sufficient (see Wilkins v. Earle, 44 N.Y. 172, 192, and see Ne-Ha-Sa-Ne Park Ass'n v. Lloyd, 25 Misc. 207, 211, 55 N.Y.S. 108, 111, affirmed without mention of this point at 45 App.Div. 631, 61 N.Y.S. 1143 and 167 N.Y. 431, 60 N.E. 741; Richardson on Evidence (7th ed.), § 78). And that, of course, is the customary way of establishing prima facie the ownership of real property (see Civil Practice Act, § 384; Code Crim.Proc. § 392, 1st sentence; 3 Abbott's Trial Evidence (4th ed.), pp. 1208, 1227, 1347; 2 Warren's Weed on New York Real Property, § 7.02, p. 324). Defendant never in any manner at the trial suggested that this proof was not sufficient or that he was contesting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zerafa v. Montefiore Hosp. Housing Co., Inc.
...dangerous condition of the property." Id. A deed may be offered to establish proof of ownership. See People v. Scandore, 3 N.Y.2d 681, 684, 148 N.E.2d 872, 873, 171 N.Y.S.2d 808, 810 (1958) (finding a dated and recorded deed granting property at issue to defendant years before incident occu......
-
Kirshtein v. Americu Credit Union (formerly Up State Fed. Credit Union)
...( see PJI 7:50), the presumption of continuance is not limited to issues of a person's capacity ( see e.g. People v. Scandore, 3 N.Y.2d 681, 684, 171 N.Y.S.2d 808, 148 N.E.2d 872 and Pollock v. Rapid Indus. Plastics Co., 113 A.D.2d 520, 497 N.Y.S.2d 45 [presumption of continuance of ownersh......
-
People v. Kraemer
...that issue of title was decided in his favor. On the proofs submitted the court's conclusion as to title was proper. People v. Scandore, 3 N.Y.2d 681, 171 N.Y.S.2d 808. But it was the opinion of the learned Police Justice that despite his finding of title in Mr. Fairchild and his taking of ......
-
Elias v. City of Tulsa
...Norton, 47 Okl. 794, 150 P. 703, where the original is not in possession of the party desiring to use the same. People v. Scandore, 3 N.Y.2d 681, 171 N.Y.S.2d 808, 148 N.E.2d 872 (a zoning case). Proof could have been made by showing Elias paid the ad valorem taxes. If Elias was not the own......