You are here: / / THE CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE OFFENSES DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN ONTARIO COUNTY...

THE CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE OFFENSES DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN ONTARIO COUNTY AND DID NOT HAVE A PARTICULAR EFFECT ON ONTARIO COUNTY; THEREFORE THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THEM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the custodial interference offenses did not have a “particular effect” in Ontario County, therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over them:

… [I]t is undisputed that all elements of the crime of custodial interference in the first degree were committed outside of Ontario County, the People contend that Ontario County Court could exercise jurisdiction under the ” ‘injured forum’ ” provisions of CPL 20.40 (2) (c) … . That statute provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person may be convicted in an appropriate criminal court of a particular county, of an offense of which the criminal courts of this state have jurisdiction pursuant to section 20.20, . . . when: . . . [e]ven though none of the conduct constituting such offense may have occurred within such county: . . . [s]uch conduct had, or was likely to have, a particular effect upon such county or a political subdivision or part thereof, and was performed with intent that it would, or with knowledge that it was likely to, have such particular effect therein” … . * * *

… [T]he conduct alleged in the counts of the indictment charging defendant with custodial interference in the first degree occurred outside Ontario County and did not have a materially harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of Ontario County. That conduct impacted three people: the children and their mother, none of whom resided in Ontario County, and did not impact the community as a whole … . People v Roth, 2021 NY Slip Op 06257, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

You might also like
HERE THE LANGUAGE IN THE RELEASE WAS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND NONE OF THE TRADITIONAL FACTORS WHICH INVALIDATE A CONTRACT WERE PRESENT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Despite Broad General Language, the Release Applied Solely to the Property-Damage Claim Referenced In It and Not to Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Action
Reports by Attorneys Which Relate to an Insurer’s Decision to Accept or Reject a Claim Are Discoverable—Reports by Attorneys Made After the Claim Is Rejected Are Not Discoverable
THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT (MURDER SECOND) AND THE TOP COUNT (MURDER FIRST) IN THE ALTERNATIVE; THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
FRAUD WARRANTED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR CONCERNING THE BIAS OF A PROSPECTIVE JUROR, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT).
Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied

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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE... THE 1ST DEPARTMENT, OVERRULING PRECEDENT AND JOINING THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS,...