People v. Rubanow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rubanow

40 A.D.2d 875, 338 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3316

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 875 (People v. Rubanow) 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. Rubanow, 40 A.D.2d 875, 338 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, both rendered April 11, 1972, (1) one convicting him under indictment No. 3775-71 of two violations of section B32-352.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York and a violation of subdivision 1 of section B32-358.0 of said code, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence and (2) the other convicting him under indictment No. 3712-71 of a violation of section B32-352.0 of said code, upon his plea of guilty, and [876]*876imposing sentence. Judgment under indictment No. 3775-71 modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction and sentence on the fourth count of the indictment, which charged a violation of subdivision 1 of section B32-358.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and by dismissing said count. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Judgment under indictment No. 3712-71 reversed, in the interests of justice, plea of guilty thereunder vacated, and case remanded to Criminal Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. With respect to the judgment under indictment No. 3775-71, in our opinion the evidence, particularly with respect to the issue of whether or not defendant was justified in abandoning the home improvement contract, was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With respect to the judgment under indictment No. 3712-71, in our opinion the comment by the trial court that he was not going to impose a jail sentence in connection with the conviction rendered after trial (under indictment No. 3775-71) may well have led defendant to offer his plea of guilty under the mistaken belief that a jail sentence would not be imposed upon a conviction under indictment No. 3712-71. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, both rendered April 11, 1972, (1) one convicting him under indictment No. 3775-71 of two violations of section B32-352.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York and a violation of subdivision 1 of section B32-358.0 of said code, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence and (2) the other convicting him under indictment No. 3712-71 of a violation of section B32-352.0 of said code, upon his plea of guilty, and [876]*876imposing sentence. Judgment under indictment No. 3775-71 modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction and sentence on the fourth count of the indictment, which charged a violation of subdivision 1 of section B32-358.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and by dismissing said count. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Judgment under indictment No. 3712-71 reversed, in the interests of justice, plea of guilty thereunder vacated, and case remanded to Criminal Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. With respect to the judgment under indictment No. 3775-71, in our opinion the evidence, particularly with respect to the issue of whether or not defendant was justified in abandoning the home improvement contract, was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With respect to the judgment under indictment No. 3712-71, in our opinion the comment by the trial court that he was not going to impose a jail sentence in connection with the conviction rendered after trial (under indictment No. 3775-71) may well have led defendant to offer his plea of guilty under the mistaken belief that a jail sentence would not be imposed upon a conviction under indictment No. 3712-71. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 875, 338 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rubanow-nyappdiv-1972.