People v. Feingold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Feingold

22 A.D.3d 242, 801 N.Y.S.2d 601

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 242 (People v. Feingold) 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. Feingold, 22 A.D.3d 242, 801 N.Y.S.2d 601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), rendered November 18, 2004, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. Defendant engaged in conduct that created the obvious danger of a major gas explosion in an occupied apartment building. The court properly found that this conduct satisfied the elements of first-degree reckless endangerment (see Penal Law § 120.25; People v Register, 60 NY2d 270 [1983]). Reckless endangerment does not require a showing of extreme wickedness or abject moral deficiency on the part of the perpetrator (see eg. People v Narimanbekov, 258 AD2d 417 [1999]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), rendered November 18, 2004, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. Defendant engaged in conduct that created the obvious danger of a major gas explosion in an occupied apartment building. The court properly found that this conduct satisfied the elements of first-degree reckless endangerment (see Penal Law § 120.25; People v Register, 60 NY2d 270 [1983]). Reckless endangerment does not require a showing of extreme wickedness or abject moral deficiency on the part of the perpetrator (see eg. People v Narimanbekov, 258 AD2d 417 [1999]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 242, 801 N.Y.S.2d 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-feingold-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack