People v. Sullivan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sullivan

87 Misc. 2d 254, 383 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1976 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2913

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 18, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 Misc. 2d 254 (People v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Sullivan, 87 Misc. 2d 254, 383 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1976 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant, after a jury trial, was convicted of public lewdness (Penal Law § 245.00). For the first time on appeal, he raised the objection that the statute defining the offense is unconstitutional. We note that the CPL provides such objection must be made before sentence or it is waived (CPL 170.30, subd 1, par [a]; subd 2; CPL 170.35, subd 1, par [c]; see, also, People v Eric K., NYLJ, Dec. 9, 1975, p 9, col 5; People v Friday, NYLJ, April 21, 1975, p 16, col 4). Nevertheless, we hold that the statute is not vague, and is, therefore, constitutional. The test to be applied is whether a reasonable man subject to the statute would be informed of the nature of the offense prohibited and what is required of him (People v Kass, 74 Misc 2d 682, affd 32 NY2d 856). A reasonable man would [255]*255have no difficulty in determining that the act involved herein falls within the conduct proscribed by this statute.

In addition, the evidence was sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt.

Concur: Glickman, P. J., Pittoni and Gagliardi, JJ.

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

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant, after a jury trial, was convicted of public lewdness (Penal Law § 245.00). For the first time on appeal, he raised the objection that the statute defining the offense is unconstitutional. We note that the CPL provides such objection must be made before sentence or it is waived (CPL 170.30, subd 1, par [a]; subd 2; CPL 170.35, subd 1, par [c]; see, also, People v Eric K., NYLJ, Dec. 9, 1975, p 9, col 5; People v Friday, NYLJ, April 21, 1975, p 16, col 4). Nevertheless, we hold that the statute is not vague, and is, therefore, constitutional. The test to be applied is whether a reasonable man subject to the statute would be informed of the nature of the offense prohibited and what is required of him (People v Kass, 74 Misc 2d 682, affd 32 NY2d 856). A reasonable man would [255]*255have no difficulty in determining that the act involved herein falls within the conduct proscribed by this statute.

In addition, the evidence was sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt.

Concur: Glickman, P. J., Pittoni and Gagliardi, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 Misc. 2d 254, 383 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1976 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sullivan-nyappterm-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack