People v. Arcidicono

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arcidicono

79 Misc. 2d 242, 360 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1636

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided April 30, 1974·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Memorandum, Judgment of conviction affirmed.

In our opinion, defendant’s guilt of violating the Agriculture and Markets Law (§ 353) (failure to provide proper sustenance to an animal) was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of the possible culpability of the owners of the gelding, it was clearly established that defendant was in charge of feeding the gelding for the three months prior to its demise, that he was aware of its loss of weight, and that he gave it back to its owners in such a state of malnutrition that it was mercifully destroyed.

Although we are in agreement with the trial court’s finding that the evidence was ample to establish a culpable state of mind on the part of defendant, we do not, under the present circumstances, think it necessary to pass upon the issue of whether the subject offense is one of strict liability or mental culpability (cf. Agriculture and Markets Law, § 43; Penal Law, §§ 15.00-15.15; former Penal Law, § 185; People v. Wright, 19 Misc. 135, 136, 137).

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Farley and Gtagliardi, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum, Judgment of conviction affirmed.

In our opinion, defendant’s guilt of violating the Agriculture and Markets Law (§ 353) (failure to provide proper sustenance to an animal) was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of the possible culpability of the owners of the gelding, it was clearly established that defendant was in charge of feeding the gelding for the three months prior to its demise, that he was aware of its loss of weight, and that he gave it back to its owners in such a state of malnutrition that it was mercifully destroyed.

Although we are in agreement with the trial court’s finding that the evidence was ample to establish a culpable state of mind on the part of defendant, we do not, under the present circumstances, think it necessary to pass upon the issue of whether the subject offense is one of strict liability or mental culpability (cf. Agriculture and Markets Law, § 43; Penal Law, §§ 15.00-15.15; former Penal Law, § 185; People v. Wright, 19 Misc. 135, 136, 137).

Concur — Hogan, P. J., Farley and Gtagliardi, JJ.

People v. Arcidicono, 79 Misc. 2d 242, 360 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

79 Misc. 2d 242 (People v. Arcidicono) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related