People v. Hardy

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardy

77 Misc. 2d 1092, 357 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1308

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 28, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 77 Misc. 2d 1092 (People v. Hardy) 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. Hardy, 77 Misc. 2d 1092, 357 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and facts, complaint dismissed, and fine remitted.

Defendant was charged ¡with violating Penal Law (§ 245.00) in that she was sunbathing in the nude on a public beach along with several other persons. Under the law nudity in itself is not prohibited and lewdness cannot be presumed from the mere fact of nudity. There must be a showing of lewd conduct from which the intention to act in a lewd manner can be drawn. Since no evidence was introduced establishing that defendant had intentionally exposed her private parts in a public place in a “lewd manner” or otherwise committed a “lewd act ’ ’, her guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Gilbert, 72 Misc 2d 75; cf. People v. Price, 33 N Y 2d 831; Matter of Excelsior Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 3 N Y 2d 237, 242; People v. Ulman, 258 App. Div. 262).

Glickman, P. J. and Pittoni, J. concur; Parley, J., dissents and votes to affirm the conviction in a separate memorandum.

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

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and facts, complaint dismissed, and fine remitted.

Defendant was charged ¡with violating Penal Law (§ 245.00) in that she was sunbathing in the nude on a public beach along with several other persons. Under the law nudity in itself is not prohibited and lewdness cannot be presumed from the mere fact of nudity. There must be a showing of lewd conduct from which the intention to act in a lewd manner can be drawn. Since no evidence was introduced establishing that defendant had intentionally exposed her private parts in a public place in a “lewd manner” or otherwise committed a “lewd act ’ ’, her guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Gilbert, 72 Misc 2d 75; cf. People v. Price, 33 N Y 2d 831; Matter of Excelsior Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 3 N Y 2d 237, 242; People v. Ulman, 258 App. Div. 262).

Glickman, P. J. and Pittoni, J. concur; Parley, J., dissents and votes to affirm the conviction in a separate memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 Misc. 2d 1092, 357 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardy-nyappterm-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack