Legal Opinion
People v. Owens
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 13, 2006PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Nicholas Lacovetta, J.
*601The defendant moves to dismiss count one, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, Penal Law § 170.20, because it is facially insufficient.
The defense relies on People v Lopez (8 Misc 3d 873 [2005]) to argue that a bent MetroCard does not meet the definition in Penal Law § 170.00 (6) of a “falsely altered” instrument because a bent MetroCard “does not, and cannot, purport to be an authentic, fully authorized Metrocard as issued by the Transit Authority since once it is bent, it no longer resembles the card issued by the Transit…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Dunaway v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- People v. SandovalNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- People v. HuntleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
- People v. VentimigliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. AlejandroNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Michael Terrance Wallace v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- People v. RobinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- People v. MattocksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- People v. GillsNew York Supreme Court · 2016
- People v. RichardsonAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2007