People v. Edstrom

New York County Courts

People v. Edstrom

15 Misc. 2d 567, 185 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3218

DecidedMay 28, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Misc. 2d 567 (People v. Edstrom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Edstrom, 15 Misc. 2d 567, 185 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3218 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Johh P. Dowohoe

(Putnam County Judge and Acting Judge for Nassau County). This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction after trial in the Nassau County District Court for a violation of section 1433 of the Penal Law (malicious mischief; injury to property).

On September 17,1957 an information was filed in the Nassau County District Court charging the defendant with a violation of section 1433 of the Penal Law in that the defendant unlaw[568]*568fully and willfully destroyed certain property of another, ‘ ‘ to wit, defendant threw a foreign substance on shrubs and flowering bushes on the above premises, the value of property injured or destroyed thereof by reason of the foregoing was less than $100.00.” In the course of a somewhat lengthy trial the People established that the shrub which was allegedly injured was an Azalea bush planted on the complaining witness ’ private property. On cross-examination, the People’s horticultural expert testified that the Azalea bush is classified as an ornamental plant.

Appellant contends that the conviction must be reversed on the ground that she was charged and convicted for a violation of a section of the Penal Law which had no application to the alleged offense. Her argument is that section 1433 of the Penal Law applies to cases involving destruction or injury of the property of another “ where the punishment is not specially prescribed by statute.” The damage to an ornamental plant situated on private grounds, however, is covered and made a misdemeanor by virtue of section 1427 of the Penal Law. Thus, the appellant argues, the present criminal prosecution was one in respect of which punishment for the act of the defendant was specially prescribed by statute and, that being so, section 1433 of the Penal Law, under which she was convicted, has no application herein.

That very contention was passed upon by the Court of Appeals in People v. Costello (305 N. Y. 63) and was sustained by a unanimous court.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the information dismissed. Submit order.

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

Johh P. Dowohoe

(Putnam County Judge and Acting Judge for Nassau County). This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction after trial in the Nassau County District Court for a violation of section 1433 of the Penal Law (malicious mischief; injury to property).

On September 17,1957 an information was filed in the Nassau County District Court charging the defendant with a violation of section 1433 of the Penal Law in that the defendant unlaw[568]*568fully and willfully destroyed certain property of another, ‘ ‘ to wit, defendant threw a foreign substance on shrubs and flowering bushes on the above premises, the value of property injured or destroyed thereof by reason of the foregoing was less than $100.00.” In the course of a somewhat lengthy trial the People established that the shrub which was allegedly injured was an Azalea bush planted on the complaining witness ’ private property. On cross-examination, the People’s horticultural expert testified that the Azalea bush is classified as an ornamental plant.

Appellant contends that the conviction must be reversed on the ground that she was charged and convicted for a violation of a section of the Penal Law which had no application to the alleged offense. Her argument is that section 1433 of the Penal Law applies to cases involving destruction or injury of the property of another “ where the punishment is not specially prescribed by statute.” The damage to an ornamental plant situated on private grounds, however, is covered and made a misdemeanor by virtue of section 1427 of the Penal Law. Thus, the appellant argues, the present criminal prosecution was one in respect of which punishment for the act of the defendant was specially prescribed by statute and, that being so, section 1433 of the Penal Law, under which she was convicted, has no application herein.

That very contention was passed upon by the Court of Appeals in People v. Costello (305 N. Y. 63) and was sustained by a unanimous court.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the information dismissed. Submit order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Misc. 2d 567, 185 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-edstrom-nycountyct-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack