Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120413_0001950.NY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-10 01:37:21
Document Index: 179122784

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 119', '§ 95', '§ 95', '§ 119', '§ 95', '§ 95']

| The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Ettie Properties
The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Ettie Properties
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, --v.ETTIE PROPERTIES, INC. AND ISAAC HERSHKO ALSO KNOWN AS ITZCHAK HERSHKO, APPELLANTS.
Appeal from six judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Cedarhurst, Nassau County (Andrew S. Goldsmith, J.), rendered April 14, 2010.
People v Ettie Props., Inc.
Three of the judgments convicted defendant Ettie Properties, Inc., and three of the judgments convicted Isaac Hershko also known as Itzchak Hershko, after a non-jury trial, of authorizing the installation of electrical equipment and the performance of electrical work without a permit, authorizing the commencement and continuation of construction alteration and change of occupancy without obtaining a building permit and violating a posted stop work order, respectively.
Each defendant was charged in three separate prosecutor's informations with, respectively, authorizing the installation of electrical equipment and the performance of electrical work without a permit (Village of Cedarhurst Code § 119-6), authorizing the commencement and continuation of construction alteration and change of occupancy without obtaining a building permit (Village of Cedarhurst Code § 95-17) and violating a posted stop work order (Village of Cedarhurst Code § 95-14 [A]). Following a non-jury trial, defendants were convicted of the charged offenses.
Upon a review of the six accusatory instruments, we find that they are
jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed (see generally People
v Eager Beaver Tree Service, 23 Misc 3d 131[A], 2009 NY Slip Op
50663[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). The accusatory instruments
charging defendants with performing electrical work without a permit
(Village of Cedarhurst Code § 119-6) fail to contain allegations that the
value of the work allegedly performed exceeded $500 or that the work
was performed in the absence of an emergency. The accusatory
instruments charging defendants with building without a permit
(Village of Cedarhurst Code § 95-17) fail to allege that the work
purportedly performed was not undertaken to make ordinary repairs and
that the value of the work was $500 or more in cost. Absent these
required elements of the respective offenses, these accusatory
instruments fail to "establish, if true," that defendant committed the
charged offenses (see CPL 100.40 [1] [c]; People v Santulli, 28 Misc
3d 136[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51450[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; People v
Raskin, 21 Misc 3d 137[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52230[U] [App Term, 9th
& 10th Jud Dists 2008]).
The accusatory instruments charging defendants with violating a stop work order (Village of Cedarhurst Code § 95-14 [A]) fail to set forth allegations of an "evidentiary character" supporting or tending to support the charge (see CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [1] [a]). Section 95-14 (A) provides that a stop work order is duly issued when work is being performed in violation of "the applicable building laws, ordinances or regulations or not in conformity with the provisions of an application, plans or specifications on the basis of which a building permit was issued or in an unsafe and dangerous manner." The statement in both accusatory instruments that the defendant named therein "continued to illegally install construction materials and make alterations thereat" is conclusory, rather than evidentiary, as there are no allegations establishing in what way this work was unauthorized or in violation of applicable building laws or permits (see People v Curiale, 20 Misc 3d 133[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51465[U] [App Tem, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Thus, these accusatory instruments are jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed.
Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are reversed and the accusatory instruments are dismissed. In view of the foregoing, we pass on no other issue. LaCava, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur. Decision