You are here: / / PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF...

PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a concurring opinion, determined that the “place of business” exception the the stature criminalizing possession of an unlicensed firearm as a felony did not apply to defendant, who was a swing manager at a McDonald’s restaurant. While working at the restaurant the defendant’s firearm discharged accidentally and wounded him:

The question presented on this appeal is whether the “place of business” exception to Penal Law § 265.03 (3) applies to an employee who possessed an unlicensed firearm at work. Defendant contends that “place of business” simply means one’s place of employment, and therefore the exception applies. We read the exception to narrowly encompass a person’s “place of business,” when such person is a merchant, storekeeper, or principal operator of a like establishment. People v Wallace, 2018 NY Slip Op 03305, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP))/PLACE OF BUSINESS (POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP))/WEAPON, POSSESSION OF (PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP))

You might also like
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD PARKING LOT FOR SHEA STADIUM, ON PARKLAND, IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE AND REQUIRES SPECIFIC ENABLING LEGISLATION, THE LEGISLATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHEA STADIUM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
A GENERIC NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN A CONTRACT DOES NOT TRANSFORM ALL NEW YORK STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS INTO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT DID NOT MENTION BOND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LIEN LAW AND THE CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION COULD NOT BE USED TO READ THE LIEN LAW REQUIREMENT INTO THE CONTRACT (CT APP).
In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period
THE MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSING WAS ONE OF THE SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS DESIGNATED AS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (CT APP).
Village Properly Withdrew Its Defense and Indemnification of Officials When Officials Refused a Reasonable Settlement Offer
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT BEFORE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL AND SUSPENDED IN NEW YORK JUST AFTER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S DEPRIVATION-OF-HIS-RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL AND INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE ARGUMENTS WERE REJECTED; THE ATTORNEY WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF HIS SUSPENSION OR THE PENDING SUSPENSION PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF LANDLORD, PURSUANT TO THE VILLAGE WATER DEPARTMENT’S RULES, CAN NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THE TENANT’S UNPAID WATER BILLS (CT APP).
Motion to Amend Pleadings to Conform to the Proof Was Properly Granted by the Trial Court—Although the Counterclaim Was Not Pled, the Subject of the Counterclaim Was Central to the Trial—Amendment Did Not Prejudice the Plaintiffs

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL... EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY...