People v. Pannizzo

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Joseph

    58 Misc. 3d 61 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)   Cited 2 times

    "In order to constitute an attempt, the defendant's conduct must have passed the stage of mere intent or mere preparation to commit a crime. In other words, the defendant must have engaged in conduct that came dangerously near commission of the completed crime" ( People v. Naradzay, 11 N.Y.3d 460, 466, 872 N.Y.S.2d 373, 900 N.E.2d 924 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord People v. Carpenter, 138 A.D.3d 1130, 1132, 30 N.Y.S.3d 299 [2016] ; see People v. Denson, 26 N.Y.3d 179, 189, 21 N.Y.S.3d 179, 42 N.E.3d 676 [2015] ; People v. Acosta, 80 N.Y.2d 665, 670, 593 N.Y.S.2d 978, 609 N.E.2d 518 [1993] ; People v. Pannizzo, 130 A.D.3d 467, 468, 13 N.Y.S.3d 78 [2015] ). Furthermore, it is well settled that the "dangerously near" standard "does not ... mandate that the defendant take the final step necessary to complete the offense" ( People v. Naradzay, 11 N.Y.3d at 466, 872 N.Y.S.2d 373, 900 N.E.2d 924 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Denson, 26 N.Y.3d at 189, 21 N.Y.S.3d 179, 42 N.E.3d 676 ; People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 190, 544 N.Y.S.2d 769, 543 N.E.2d 34 [1989] ; People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 300, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094 [1977] ).

  2. People v. Pantoja

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 50811 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)

    In this regard, the factual portion of the complaint alleges that defendant was observed at 6:05 pm on a specified date, behind 162 East 111 Street, "taking pipes from inside of a building, and then . . . handing those pipes to [his codefendant]"; and that police recovered a "flashlight" and "pipe cutter" from defendant and "a flashlight, two bolt cutters, a pipe wrench and a hammer" from the ground near the co-defendant which the codefendant stated belonged to him. The quoted facts, even when taken together with all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from those facts (see People v Jackson, 18 NY3d 738, 747 [2012]), do not give rise to the inference that defendant possessed the subject tools with intent to commit a burglary or similar offense (see People v Holzman, 232 NY 553 [1921]; see also People v Pannizzo, 130 AD3d 467 [2015]). Simply put, no facts are alleged from which it may be inferred that defendant was committing or intended to commit a burglary, that he did not own or have permission to take pipes from the building (see People v Borrero, 26 NY2d 430, 434 [1970]; Matter of Wilson G., 214 AD2d 670, 671 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 811 [1996]), or even that he lacked permission or authority to enter the subject building or the area behind it (see People v Taylor, 190 AD2d 628 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1020 [1993]; People v Foskey, 190 AD2d 638 [1993]).