People v. Fluss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fluss

10 A.D.2d 572, 195 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11962

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 572 (People v. Fluss) 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. Fluss, 10 A.D.2d 572, 195 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law and upon the facts and the information dismissed and the fine remitted. The evidence is insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant suffered or permitted the premises to become disorderly. In order to find one guilty of such charge it must be found that the defendant “ knowingly allowed such things to occur and to continue ”. (Matter of Stanwood United v. O’Connell, 283 App. Div. 79, 82.) Such a finding “would have to be bottomed upon a showing either of more than a single event or the showing of a demonstrated attitude toward that happening which indicated acquiescence ”. (Matter of Stanwood United v. O’Connell, supra.) There is insufficient evidence here to establish either the requisite other events or acquiescence or that the defendant was even aware of the acts complained of. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law and upon the facts and the information dismissed and the fine remitted. The evidence is insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant suffered or permitted the premises to become disorderly. In order to find one guilty of such charge it must be found that the defendant “ knowingly allowed such things to occur and to continue ”. (Matter of Stanwood United v. O’Connell, 283 App. Div. 79, 82.) Such a finding “would have to be bottomed upon a showing either of more than a single event or the showing of a demonstrated attitude toward that happening which indicated acquiescence ”. (Matter of Stanwood United v. O’Connell, supra.) There is insufficient evidence here to establish either the requisite other events or acquiescence or that the defendant was even aware of the acts complained of. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 572, 195 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fluss-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack