People v. Tullo

Decision Date02 May 1974
Citation356 N.Y.S.2d 861,313 N.E.2d 340,34 N.Y.2d 712
Parties, 313 N.E.2d 340 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nicholas TULLO, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Eugene Murphy, New York City, James J. McDonough and Matthew Muraskin, Mineola, for appellant.

William Cahn, Dist. Atty. (Henry P. DeVine, Mineola, and John P. Della Ratta, Greenvale, of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

Venue was properly laid in Nassau County. CPL 20.40 (subd. 1, par. (a)) requires only that it be proved that conduct occurred within the county sufficient to establish one element of the offense. While venue may be established by a preponderance of the evidence (People v. Hetenyi, 304 N.Y. 80, 84, 106 N.E.2d 20, 21) in this instance the trial court's charge inadvertently called for a higher quantum of proof--beyond a reasonable doubt. On this record we agree with the Appellate Division, 41 A.D.2d 957, 343 N.Y.S.2d 984, that the jury was justified in finding, even under the more stringent standard, that defendant's conduct in Nassau County was sufficient to establish that his intent to murder was formulated in that county.

We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.

BREITEL, C.J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, SAMUEL RABIN and STEVENS, JJ., concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 cases
  • People v. Ribowsky
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 1991
    ...819; see also, People v. Hetenyi, 304 N.Y. 80, 106 N.E.2d 20) or one of the statutory exceptions is applicable (People v. Tullo, 34 N.Y.2d 712, 356 N.Y.S.2d 861, 313 N.E.2d 340). Conspiracy is such an exception: it may be prosecuted in the county in which defendant entered into the conspira......
  • In re Investors Funding Corp., Etc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 19, 1980
  • People v. Nieves
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 1, 1994
    ...795, 385 N.E.2d 535; Matter of Steingut v. Gold, 42 N.Y.2d 311, 316, 397 N.Y.S.2d 765, 366 N.E.2d 854; People v. Tullo, 34 N.Y.2d 712, 714, 356 N.Y.S.2d 861, 313 N.E.2d 340). Taking appellant's remaining points in logical sequence, his contention that his confession should have been suppres......
  • Wright v. Morning Star Ambulette Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 27, 2019
    ... ... records were properly authenticated and submitted on the motion, Meyerson properly relied upon the expert opinion to support his motion (see People v. Ortega, 15 N.Y.3d 610, 617, 917 N.Y.S.2d 1, 942 N.E.2d 210 ; Butler v. Cayuga Med. Ctr., 158 A.D.3d 868, 873, 71 N.Y.S.3d 642 ). Accordingly, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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