People v. Asselta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Asselta

1 A.D.2d 960, 150 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 9, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 960 (People v. Asselta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Asselta, 1 A.D.2d 960, 150 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of a City Magistrate sitting as a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, [961]*961convicting appellant of a violation of paragraph a of subdivision 4 of section 20 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (knowingly permitting an unlicensed person to drive a motor vehicle on the public highway), and from the sentence directing appellant to pay a fine of $15. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, complaint dismissed, and fine remitted. Appellant should have been charged with a violation of subdivision 2 of section 41 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which applies to motorcycles, and not with a violation of the statute set forth in the complaint, which applies to motor vehicles. A motorcycle is not a motor vehicle. (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 2, subd. 8.) In any event, there is no proof nor are there facts from which it may be inferred that appellant authorized the unlicensed person to operate the motorcycle or had knowledge that said person was not licensed. Under the circumstances, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. No separate appeal lies from the sentence, which has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of a City Magistrate sitting as a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, [961]*961convicting appellant of a violation of paragraph a of subdivision 4 of section 20 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (knowingly permitting an unlicensed person to drive a motor vehicle on the public highway), and from the sentence directing appellant to pay a fine of $15. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, complaint dismissed, and fine remitted. Appellant should have been charged with a violation of subdivision 2 of section 41 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which applies to motorcycles, and not with a violation of the statute set forth in the complaint, which applies to motor vehicles. A motorcycle is not a motor vehicle. (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 2, subd. 8.) In any event, there is no proof nor are there facts from which it may be inferred that appellant authorized the unlicensed person to operate the motorcycle or had knowledge that said person was not licensed. Under the circumstances, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. No separate appeal lies from the sentence, which has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 960, 150 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-asselta-nyappdiv-1956.