Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Travis Marshall, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2000-11-17
Citations: 187 Misc. 2d 423
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Travis Marshall, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 187
Pages: 423–424

Head Matter:
[723 NYS2d 814]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Travis Marshall, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
November 17, 2000
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Legal Aid Society, New York City (M. Sue Wycoff and Daniel S. Medwed of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction rendered August 25, 1998 affirmed.
Evidence at trial was that defendant entered a New York City subway station without paying the required fare by "stepping] over" a turnstile. Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction of third degree criminal trespass (Penal Law § 140.10 [a]; see, People v Zaret, NYLJ, Nov. 28, 1997, at 28, col 4 [App Term, 1st Dept], lv denied 91 NY2d 899). We decline the defendant's invitation to reconsider our decision in People v Zaret (supra), and note that this appeal marks the second time that this defendant has asked us to reexamine Zaret (see, People v Marshall, NYLJ, Sept. 30, 1998, at 25, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept], lv denied 92 NY2d 1051). We reaffirm our view that a lawful order precluding entry is not a necessary element of the People's case in a criminal trespass prosecution involving entry into a City subway station "equipped with self-locking turnstiles and gates designed to prevent unauthorized entry" (People v Zaret, supra, at 25, col 1).
Upon our independent review of the facts, we are satisfied that the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).
Parness, P. J., Gangel-Jacob and Suarez, JJ., concur.