People v. Kanciper

100 A.D.3d 778, 954 N.Y.S.2d 146
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 14, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 100 A.D.3d 778 (People v. Kanciper) 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. Kanciper, 100 A.D.3d 778, 954 N.Y.S.2d 146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered January 24, 2012, convicting her of endangering the welfare of a child, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the County [779]*779Court, Suffolk County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

The defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child after she injected a dog with a tranquilizer in the presence of a child. Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence failed to establish that witnessing the injection of the tranquilizer was likely to result in harm to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of the child (see Penal Law § 260.10 [1]; People v Hitchcock, 98 NY2d 586, 590-591 [2002]). There was no evidence demonstrating that the child was aware, at the time she witnessed the injection, that the defendant intended to euthanize the dog later that day, or that she was upset by seeing the dog receive the tranquilizer injection. The child was familiar with medical treatments requiring injections, as she had seen her own pet dog injected on many occasions to treat his diabetes. Consequently, the evidence supporting the defendant’s conviction was not legally sufficient (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d at 621).

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Angiolillo, J.E, Lott, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matthews v. Barr
927 F.3d 606 (Second Circuit, 2019)
New York Horse Rescue Corp. v. Suffolk County Socy. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
2018 NY Slip Op 5934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Chase
2018 NY Slip Op 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Kanciper v. Lato
Second Circuit, 2017
MENDOZA OSORIO
26 I. & N. Dec. 703 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 A.D.3d 778, 954 N.Y.S.2d 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kanciper-nyappdiv-2012.