People v. Burke

243 A.D. 83, 276 N.Y.S. 402, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5492
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 24, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 243 A.D. 83 (People v. Burke) 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. Burke, 243 A.D. 83, 276 N.Y.S. 402, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

An information was filed in New York county accusing the defendants, in four counts, of the violation of section 1140 of the Penal Law (indecent exposure), section 43 (openly outraging public decency), section 1530, subdivision 2 (maintaining public nuisance), and section 1533 (permitting building to be used for public nuisance).

Defendants Burke and Topel, on June 11, 1934, were found guilty by a Court of Special Sessions, one judge dissenting. Defendant Manisealco, on June 18, 1934, stipulated with the district attorney that the record of the previous trial should be used as an agreed statement of facts, and would be deemed the entire testimony in his case. He also was found guilty on the record, one judge dissenting. Manisealco and Topel received suspended sentences. Burke was fined the sum of fifty dollars with the alternative of spending ten days in prison. The three defendants have joined in this appeal. In dissenting, Mr. Justice Kernochan said: “ I don’t feel that the law at present, enacted a number of years ago, is sufficiently broad enough to render a conviction on this evidence. It is possible, should the Legislature see fit to stop this practice,— I think it should be dealt with at the next opportunity to pass laws in that regard.”

On the final analysis, the crimes charged in the different counts are based primarily on an alleged violation of section 1140 of the Penal Law. In the light of the testimony adduced in this particular case, we believe that the conclusion reached by the dissenting justice of the Court of Special Sessions was based upon a solid foundation and the judgment entered should be reversed, the information dismissed, and the fine remitted.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; Merrell, J., dissents and votes for affirmance.

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

Related

People v. Craft
134 Misc. 2d 121 (Rochester City Court, 1986)
People v. Hardy
77 Misc. 2d 1092 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
People v. Gilbert
72 Misc. 2d 75 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1972)
In Re Davis
242 Cal. App. 2d 645 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1959
People v. Hildabridle
92 N.W.2d 6 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1958)
Excelsior Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the University
144 N.E.2d 31 (New York Court of Appeals, 1957)
State v. Becker
272 S.W.2d 283 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1954)
People v. Casey
188 Misc. 352 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D. 83, 276 N.Y.S. 402, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burke-nyappdiv-1934.