From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Goldsborough

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Apr 8, 2013
39 Misc. 3d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

No. 2011–2181 OR CR.

2013-04-8

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Patricia GOLDSBOROUGH, Appellant.


Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Greenwood Lake, Orange County (Nancy Brenner DeAngelo, J.), rendered July 19, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of failing to remove debris from her property.
Present: IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

Defendant was charged with failing to remove debris from specified property located in the Village of Greenwood Lake on February 5, 2008, in violation of Greenwood Lake Village Code § 62–7. She subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a $2,500 fine. The pertinent part of the Greenwood Lake Village Code states as follows:

“the exterior of the premises and all structures thereon shall be kept free of all nuisance and any hazards to the safety of the occupant, pedestrians and other persons utilizing the premises ... and any of the foregoing shall be promptly removed and abated by the owner or operator to keep the premises free of hazards, which include but are not limited to the following: ... Refuse: brush, weeds, broken glass, stumps, roots ... garbage, trash and debris, abandoned automobiles” (emphasis added).

A review of the information charging defendant with violating Greenwood Lake Village Code § 62–7 indicates that it fails to contain any allegation that defendant owned or operated the property where the debris was located. Consequently, the information fails to allege facts of an evidentiary character that establish, if true, every element of the offense charged ( seeCPL 100.15[3]; 100.40[1][c]; People v. Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009];People v. Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729, 731 [1986] ) and, thus, is jurisdictionally defective. We pass on no other issue.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Goldsborough

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Apr 8, 2013
39 Misc. 3d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Goldsborough

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Patricia Goldsborough…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Apr 8, 2013

Citations

39 Misc. 3d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 50534
971 N.Y.S.2d 73

Citing Cases

People v. Jacobi

fording the instrument "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (Casey, 95 NY2d at 360), that…