You are here: / / PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT...

PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to the exception to the criminal possession of a weapon statute for possession in a person’s “place of business” (reducing the offense to a misdemeanor). Here defendant brought a firearm to work at McDonald’s and shot himself in the leg. The court reasoned the “place of business” exception did not apply because McDonald’s prohibited its employees from carrying firearms:

Although the “place of business” exception is not statutorily defined, it has been “construed narrowly by the courts in an effort to balance the State’s strong policy to severely restrict possession of any firearm’ . . . with its policy to treat with leniency persons attempting to protect certain areas in which they have a possessory interest and to which members of the public have limited access” … . Inasmuch as the evidence at trial established that defendant was prohibited from bringing a gun to work, we conclude that to permit defendant to be subjected only to a misdemeanor “would certainly controvert the meaning and intent of the statute” … . People v Wallace, 2017 NY Slip Op 01071, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE)/WEAPONS, CRIMINAL POSSESSION (PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE)

You might also like
Elements of Civil Antitrust Action Under the General Business Law (Donnelly Act) Explained; Corporate Officers Can Be Individually Liable
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WHICH AMOUNTED TO A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE WERE NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Inform Defendant of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Required Reversal in the Absence of an Objection
DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE PLEA WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
SIGN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SAYING THE DEFENDANT “SCREWED US BEWARE” WAS ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION, MOTION TO DISMISS THE DEFAMATION COUNTERCLAIM IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTHER VIOLATED A COURT ORDER BY RELOCATING TO ARIZONA WITH THE CHILD; HOWEVER, HER ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE BY FATHER WERE CREDIBLE AND WARRANTED GRANTING HER CROSS PETITION TO RELOCATE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE NOTE REQUIRED THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW TO THE “TERMS OF THE DOCUMENTS” BUT SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED A SUIT IN EITHER NEW YORK OR FLORIDA; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS TO RULE OUT A NEW YORK LAWSUIT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN THOUGH... LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...