People v. Reynoso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reynoso

77 A.D.3d 528, 908 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 528 (People v. Reynoso) 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. Reynoso, 77 A.D.3d 528, 908 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret L. Clancy, J.), rendered March 5, 2007, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of public lewdness, and sentencing him to a term of 1 year’s probation, unanimously affirmed.

The superceding information charging defendant with public lewdness pursuant to Penal Law § 245.00 was facially sufficient. The “public place” requirement was satisfied by allegations that adequately described the premises (an entry vestibule), defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances, so as to warrant the inference that defendant committed a lewd act in a place where he would likely be observed by casual passersby (see People v McNamara, 78 NY2d 626 [1991]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Freedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret L. Clancy, J.), rendered March 5, 2007, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of public lewdness, and sentencing him to a term of 1 year’s probation, unanimously affirmed.

The superceding information charging defendant with public lewdness pursuant to Penal Law § 245.00 was facially sufficient. The “public place” requirement was satisfied by allegations that adequately described the premises (an entry vestibule), defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances, so as to warrant the inference that defendant committed a lewd act in a place where he would likely be observed by casual passersby (see People v McNamara, 78 NY2d 626 [1991]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Freedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 528, 908 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reynoso-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack