In People v Campbell (6 Misc 3d 130[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50064[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept 2005]), the court held that "the issue is whether the exemption on its face exhausts the limitations on enforcement, and if not, whether the result fairly apportions the burden of proof and comports with rational pleading requirements."
Summary of this case from People v. MahoneyJanuary 26, 2005.
Crimes — Criminal Contempt. Penal Law — § 215.50 (3) (Criminal contempt, second degree).
In People v Campbell (6 Misc 3d 130[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50064[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept 2005]), the court held that "the issue is whether the exemption on its face exhausts the limitations on enforcement, and if not, whether the result fairly apportions the burden of proof and comports with rational pleading requirements."
Summary of this case from People v. MahoneyIn People v. Campbell, 6 Misc.3d 130(A), 2005 WL 263722 (App.Term, 2nd Dept., 2005), the court held that, “... the issue is whether the exemption on its face exhausts the limitations on enforcement, and if not, whether the result fairly apportions the burden of proof and comports with rational pleading requirements...” Accord, People v. Flowers, 8 Misc.3d 516, 519, 797 N.Y.S.2d 853 (Crim.
Summary of this case from People v. MahoneyIn People v Campbell (6 Misc 3d 130[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50064[U], *1 [2005]), the court observed that "a true exception [is one] which prohibits enforcement in a defined class of cases, and which, as an element of the offense, the People must plead and prove inapplicable."
Summary of this case from People v. StevensFull title:People v. Campbell (Brian)
Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Date published: Jan 26, 2005
In light of the above, the question is whether the People must show in the pleadings that the "rental…
People v. SyllaSaid history, which is set forth in detail in People v. Romano ( 188 Misc 2d 368), reveals that said special…