People v. Fiore

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fiore

3 Misc. 3d 18, 777 N.Y.S.2d 214, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 270

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Misc. 3d 18 (People v. Fiore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Fiore, 3 Misc. 3d 18, 777 N.Y.S.2d 214, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[19]*19OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

The court below properly held Code of Ordinances of the City of Newburgh § 183.14 (A) (4) to be constitutional. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the requirements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard, which were provided in this case (see e.g. Kennedy v Mossafa, 100 NY2d 1 [2003]; Garden Homes Woodlands Co. v Town of Dover, 95 NY2d 516 [2000]), not an opportunity to cure (see Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of N.Y. v De Bona, 101 AD2d 875 [1984]). A requirement of notice to abate a nuisance, to which defendant compares the proceedings against him, attaches only where the owner has no notice of the condition and cannot be charged with actual or constructive knowledge of it, for example, where a violation exists within demised premises (Matter of 300 W. 154th St. Realty Co. v Department of Bldgs. of City of N.Y., 26 NY2d 538, 543 [1970]; People v Brown, 115 Misc 2d 277 [1982]). Putting out garbage at a public curbside does not fall within this category, and imposing a fine upon defendant for such a violation at least encourages him to see that his tenants comply with the ordinance in the future, whether through a superintendent or property manager or by other means. In any event, the ordinance at issue regulates the time and place of putting out garbage for collection. This activity is a normal part of municipal living, and cannot be considered a nuisance of the kind addressed by Matter of 300 W. 154th St. Realty Co. and similar cases, any more than is parking in a no-parking zone, for which, in general, no opportunity to cure is provided prior to ticketing and even towing.

For the same reasons, the court below properly denied defendant’s pretrial motion, made on essentially identical grounds, to dismiss the accusatory instrument.

McCabe, P.J., Rudolph and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

[19]*19OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

The court below properly held Code of Ordinances of the City of Newburgh § 183.14 (A) (4) to be constitutional. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the requirements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard, which were provided in this case (see e.g. Kennedy v Mossafa, 100 NY2d 1 [2003]; Garden Homes Woodlands Co. v Town of Dover, 95 NY2d 516 [2000]), not an opportunity to cure (see Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of N.Y. v De Bona, 101 AD2d 875 [1984]). A requirement of notice to abate a nuisance, to which defendant compares the proceedings against him, attaches only where the owner has no notice of the condition and cannot be charged with actual or constructive knowledge of it, for example, where a violation exists within demised premises (Matter of 300 W. 154th St. Realty Co. v Department of Bldgs. of City of N.Y., 26 NY2d 538, 543 [1970]; People v Brown, 115 Misc 2d 277 [1982]). Putting out garbage at a public curbside does not fall within this category, and imposing a fine upon defendant for such a violation at least encourages him to see that his tenants comply with the ordinance in the future, whether through a superintendent or property manager or by other means. In any event, the ordinance at issue regulates the time and place of putting out garbage for collection. This activity is a normal part of municipal living, and cannot be considered a nuisance of the kind addressed by Matter of 300 W. 154th St. Realty Co. and similar cases, any more than is parking in a no-parking zone, for which, in general, no opportunity to cure is provided prior to ticketing and even towing.

For the same reasons, the court below properly denied defendant’s pretrial motion, made on essentially identical grounds, to dismiss the accusatory instrument.

McCabe, P.J., Rudolph and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Misc. 3d 18, 777 N.Y.S.2d 214, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fiore-nyappterm-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack