People v. Vargas

8 Misc. 3d 113
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 7, 2005·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[114] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

The defendant contends that any attempt to endanger the welfare of a child is legally impossible. Where a penal statute imposes strict liability for committing certain conduct, an attempt is legally cognizable, since one can attempt to engage in conduct (People v Prescott, 95 NY2d 655, 659 [2001]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the crime of endangering the welfare of a child proscribes particular conduct — the knowing acts likely to be injurious to the welfare of a child. Thus, the crime of attempted endangering the welfare of a child is not a legal impossibility.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal.

Pesce, EJ., Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Vargas, 8 Misc. 3d 113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

8 Misc. 3d 113 (People v. Vargas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Mora
138 A.D.3d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Aponte
24 Misc. 3d 118 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Afia
17 Misc. 3d 734 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2007)