People v. Santiago

74 Misc. 2d 10, 343 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1072
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 3, 1971
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 74 Misc. 2d 10 (People v. Santiago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Santiago, 74 Misc. 2d 10, 343 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1072 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1971).

Opinion

Johh M. Murtagh, J.

Defendant’s omnibus motion is disposed of as hereinafter indicated.

That branch of the motion requesting a suppression hearing is respectfully referred to the trial court.

The defendant, a taxicab driver, was arrested on or about February 7, 1971 and charged with the crime of criminal possession of a dangerous weapon as a felony. On April 28, 1971 the defendant was indicted and charged with the above-mentioned crime.

The defendant moves to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and/or in the alternative for a dismissal of the indictment.

The court has read the Grand Jury minutes. It does not appear that the evidence submitted establishes the commission of a felony under subdivision 2 of section 265.05 of the Penal Law.

Subdivision 2 of section 265.05 provides that “ Such possession [possession of a firearm] shall not * * * constitute a felony

if such possession takes place in such person’s home or place of business.” It is evident that the Legislature intended to classify possession in a home or place of business a lesser degree of crime than one that takes place elsewhere. The policy behind such special classification is evident.

We have in this case possession of a .38 automatic Beretta in a cigar box used to keep the day’s receipts, the cigar box being in a taxicab assigned to the defendant for his daily business use. There is no precedent to guide the court. Nonetheless, it appears evident that within the letter and spirit of subdivision 2 of section 265.05 the possession is a possession in a “ place of business.”

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment is granted.

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

Related

State v. Fisher
2006 WI 44 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2006)
State v. Lutters
853 A.2d 434 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2004)
State v. Lutters, No. Cr6-501347 (May 22, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 7055-w (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
People v. Allison
117 Misc. 2d 463 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
People v. Marotta
128 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 1 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1981)
People v. Rondon
109 Misc. 2d 394 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
Billinger v. United States
425 A.2d 1304 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1981)
People v. McWilliams
96 Misc. 2d 648 (New York County Courts, 1978)
People v. Francis
341 N.E.2d 540 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
People v. Lemelle
81 Misc. 2d 674 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1975)
People v. Francis
45 A.D.2d 431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
People v. Santana
77 Misc. 2d 414 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 Misc. 2d 10, 343 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santiago-nysupct-1971.