People v. Rodman

299 N.E.2d 257, 32 N.Y.2d 821, 345 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1281
New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 4, 1973·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term .should be affirmed. The verified accusatory instrument, based entirely on nonhearsay, stated precisely the date, time, and place of the act charged, described the act as “ dense smoke from incinerator stack ’ ’, and specified the statutory provision allegedly violated. Thus, the instrument was sufficiently particular to meet the standard required of an information (cf. People v. Love, 306 N. Y. 18, 23-25). Whether the air pollution misdemeanor could have been charged by a “ complaint ” without the exactness of an information need not be determined.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Breitel, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Waohtler concur.

Order affirmed in memorandum.

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

People v. Rodman, 299 N.E.2d 257, 32 N.Y.2d 821, 345 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1281 (N.Y. 1973).

299 N.E.2d 257 (People v. Rodman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Cunningham
188 Misc. 2d 184 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2001)
People v. Gindi
166 Misc. 2d 672 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1995)
People v. Gross
148 Misc. 2d 232 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1990)
People v. MacFarlene Co.
130 Misc. 2d 70 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1985)
People v. Oasis Cabana Spa, Inc.
95 Misc. 2d 59 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1978)