People v Obadiah (Albert)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Obadiah (Albert) 2010 NY Slip Op 52214(U) [29 Misc 3d 144(A)] Decided on December 15, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 15, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MOLIA, J.P., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
2009-1097 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Albert Obadiah, Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District


(C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), rendered April 15, 2009. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two charges of failing to maintain electrical wiring and devices.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are reversed, on the facts, the accusatory instruments are dismissed, and the fines, if paid, are remitted.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of two charges of failing to maintain electrical wiring and devices (Code of the Town of Huntington § 124-11 [C]).To the extent that defendant's contention on appeal is based on legal insufficiency, it is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). However, upon the exercise of our independent factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we find that the verdicts of guilt were against the weight of the evidence. The People failed to present any evidence establishing that the wiring in question was connected to any electrical source so as to pose an electrical hazard or to be a potential source of ignition for combustible material.

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are reversed and the accusatory instruments are dismissed.

Molia, J.P., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 15, 2010

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.