People v. Gins

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gins

49 Misc. 2d 883, 268 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2164

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 24, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Misc. 2d 883 (People v. Gins) 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. Gins, 49 Misc. 2d 883, 268 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with riding on the Long Island Railroad “without producing his railroad ticket and when asked for ticket, stated ‘ I’m not going to give you my ticket ’ ”. The back of the ticket expressly stated that it must be presented to trainman each trip, or upon request. Defendant refused to show his ticket not once, but twice. This is a violation of subdivision 1 of section 1990 of the Penal Law. (East v. Brooklyn Hgts. R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 409, 414.) Defendant’s refusal to show his ticket was prima facie evidence that he did not have one, or, if he did, was not using it on this trip. “ Any other rule would lead to anarchy on our railroads” (People v. Pansmith, 14 Misc 2d 300, 303). If he did not have the ticket with him, he could have paid his fare subject to refund.

The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with riding on the Long Island Railroad “without producing his railroad ticket and when asked for ticket, stated ‘ I’m not going to give you my ticket ’ ”. The back of the ticket expressly stated that it must be presented to trainman each trip, or upon request. Defendant refused to show his ticket not once, but twice. This is a violation of subdivision 1 of section 1990 of the Penal Law. (East v. Brooklyn Hgts. R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 409, 414.) Defendant’s refusal to show his ticket was prima facie evidence that he did not have one, or, if he did, was not using it on this trip. “ Any other rule would lead to anarchy on our railroads” (People v. Pansmith, 14 Misc 2d 300, 303). If he did not have the ticket with him, he could have paid his fare subject to refund.

The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 2d 883, 268 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gins-nyappterm-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack