People v H.C. Anderson Corp.

[*1] People v H.C. Anderson Corp. 2005 NYSlipOp 50871(U) Decided on June 7, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 7, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
2003-1525 D CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

H.C. Anderson Corp., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the Justice Court, Village of Tivoli, Dutchess County (H. Clark, J.), rendered September 15, 2003, convicting it of multiple counts of violating section 1154.1 of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and imposing sentences.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

In each of two accusatory instruments, defendant was charged with 32 counts of violating section 1154.1 of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code as adopted by the Village of Tivoli. The first accusatory instrument alleged that defendant violated said section of the code on the dates charged in that it failed to lock, barricade, guard or otherwise secure the windows, doors and other openings to prohibit entry by unauthorized persons to the structure, which had been vacant for more than 60 days. The second accusatory instrument charged defendant with failing to remove combustible waste and refuse inside said vacant building during the same period of time. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to defendant's contention, we agree with the findings of the lower court that the People established that the subject premises was in fact vacant within the meaning of the code. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [*2][5]).
Decision Date: June 07, 2005