SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
September 22, 2011
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
SPINDRIFT SAILING YACHTS,
Appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Putnam Valley, Putnam County (Gina C. Capone, J.), entered May 11, 2010.
People v Spindrift Sailing Yachts
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 22, 2011
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
The order granted defendant's motion, at the close of the People's case, to dismiss the accusatory instrument.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.
The People charged defendant with violating section 165-2 (J) (1) of the Code of the Town of Putnam Valley (the Code) in that defendant parked a recreational vehicle for more than 7 days in a 30-day period on property that does not also contain a residence of the vehicle's owner. Defendant moved before trial to dismiss the accusatory instrument, arguing, among other things, that the ordinance exceeded the Town's authority to regulate the storage of recreational vehicles on private property, that the trailer was used solely to store personal property, and that, because defendant had parked the vehicle on its property long before the ordinance's enactment, the use was protected as a pre-existing nonconforming use (Town Law § 130 ; Code § 165-9). The Justice Court denied the motion.
At the conclusion of the People's case at the ensuing non-jury trial, defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument for the grounds stated in the pretrial motion and because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove the offense (CPL 290.10  [a]). The court ruled, among other things, that the People had failed to prove each and every element of the offense charged in that the proof was insufficient to establish that the vehicle in question was of a nature proscribed by the statute. As the court's determination to grant defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal represents "a resolution, correct or not, of . . . [a] factual element of the offense charged" (People v Biggs, 1 NY3d 225, 229 , quoting United States v Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 US 564, 571 ) and therefore "an adjudication on the facts going to guilt or innocence" (People v Key, 45 NY2d 111, 117 ), no appeal lies therefrom pursuant to CPL 450.20 (see People v Brown, 40 NY2d 381 ).
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 22, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.