Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Carlos M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided September 7, 2006Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcGuire, J.

To sustain a finding that appellant violated Penal Law § 145.00 (1), the presentment agency was required to establish that appellant possessed the specific intent to damage the property of another (see People v Roberts, 140 AD2d 961 [1988]). “An intent to injure a person does not satisfy the mens rea requirement of intent to damage property simply because property is damaged in the course of the attack” (id. at 961, citing People v Washington, 18 NY2d 366 [1966]). A charge of criminal mischief in the fourth degree may be predicated upon recklessly causing damage to property, but only where…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. WashingtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
  2. People v. RobertsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API