People v. Beltrand
67 Misc. 2d 324, 324 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1462
Opinion
There was no proof, on the preliminary hearing, of loitering by defendant for any appreciable period of time. Hence, the testimony was insufficient factually to establish the conjunctive elements of subdivision 6 of section 240.35 of the Penal Law. It is therefore unnecessary to deal with defendant’s argument that the statute is unconstitutional (People v. Schanbarger, 24 N Y 2d 288; Rescue Army v. Municipal Ct., 331 U. S. 549, 569).
The order should be affirmed.
Concur — Lupiaho, J. P., Markowitz and Gold, JJ.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Beltrand, 67 Misc. 2d 324, 324 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).
67 Misc. 2d 324 (People v. Beltrand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Messina
32 Misc. 3d 318 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2011)
People v. Outlar
177 Misc. 2d 620 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1998)
People v. Melton
152 Misc. 2d 649 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
People v. Alston
149 Misc. 2d 354 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
People v. Bargeman
92 Misc. 2d 173 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)
United States ex rel. Newsome v. Malcolm
492 F.2d 1166 (Second Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Malcolm
492 F.2d 1166 (Second Circuit, 1974)
People v. Bambino
69 Misc. 2d 387 (New York County Courts, 1972)