You are here: / / COUNTERFEIT CONCERT TICKETS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING...

COUNTERFEIT CONCERT TICKETS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined that counterfeit concert tickets fall within the ambit of the statute prohibiting possession of a forged instrument:

Defendant’s argument, a jurisdictional challenge to the indictments against him, amounts to the claim that the otherwise valid statement of the elements of the crime in each count is negated by the specific allegation in the “to wit” phrase that the forged instrument purported to be an event ticket. He insists, in effect, that counterfeit event tickets could never fall within the ambit of the second-degree forgery statute. Defendant’s rationale is that event tickets, the instruments that defendant’s counterfeit documents purported to be, are merely revocable licenses and do not “affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status.” …

Defendant’s premise that event tickets are revocable licenses is true. The case law saying as much is venerable. The purchase of an event admission ticket gives the holder “a revocable license . . . to enter the building in which [the event is held], and to attend the performance” … . An event ticket, in other words, is a permission slip, subject to retraction.

It does not follow, however, that an event ticket does not affect a legal right, i.e., “right created or recognized by law” … , or status, i.e., “legal condition, whether personal or proprietary” … . Indeed, the same decisions on which defendant relies to demonstrate the revocable nature of event tickets also describe the legal rights, albeit limited, that a ticket evidences or otherwise affects. An event ticket, the Court wrote, “is a license, issued by the proprietor . . . as convenient evidence of the right of the holder to admission”… . The Legislature has similarly defined a ticket, in the context of entertainment and the arts generally, as “any evidence of the right of entry to any place of entertainment”… . People v Watts, 2018 NY Slip Op 07926, CtApp 11-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FORGED INSTRUMENTS, COUNTERFEIT CONCERT TICKETS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT (CT APP))/FORGED INSTRUMENTS, POSSESSION OF (COUNTERFEIT CONCERT TICKETS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT (CT APP))/CONCERT TICKETS (FORGED INSTRUMENTS, COUNTERFEIT CONCERT TICKETS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT (CT APP))

You might also like
Plaintiff’s Lost Profits Deemed “General Damages,” Not “Consequential Damages,” Re: a Distribution Contract in which Plaintiff Agreed to Resell Defendant’s Product
BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP).
A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION IS NOW MANDATORY UPON REQUEST; AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S TRIAL THE CHARGE WAS DISCRETIONARY; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION DID NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTITUTIONAL INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CT APP).
ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECIDED THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS ACTED RATIONALLY IN APPROVING THE USE OF A BUILDING AS A HOMELESS SHELTER ITS JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS DONE; THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER FOR A HEARING ON THE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING (CT APP).
ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED A SORA RISK FACTOR DID NOT APPLY, BRINGING DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT FROM A LEVEL THREE TO A LEVEL TWO, THE APPELLATE COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO REMIT THE MATTER TO COUNTY COURT TO CONSIDER, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHETHER AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS WARRANTED (CT APP).
THE DEFENSE WAS TIMELY PROVIDED WITH IMPEACHMENT INFORMATION REGARDING AN ARRESTING OFFICER; THE FACT THAT AN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AFTER THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) WAS FILED, DID NOT RENDER THE PROSECUTION UNTIMELY (CT APP).
THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE, WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE NOTIFIED AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPURCHASE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES, WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S TIMELY COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO REFILE THE COMPLAINT WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (CT APP).
Although a Close Case, the Evidence Supported Defendant’s Manslaughter Conviction Under an Accomplice Theory—the Judge’s Informing the Jury of the Correct Dates of the Offense, Outside the Presence of the Parties, with the Parties’ Consent, Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION... EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY MET THE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE APPELLATE...