Legal Opinion

In re Charlotte K.

New York City Family Court

Decided April 21, 1980PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Daniel D. Leddy, Jr., J.

Is a girdle a burglar’s tool or is that stretching the plain meaning of section 140.35 of the Penal Law? This elastic issue of first impression arises out of a charge that the respondent shoplifted certain items from Macy’s Department Store by dropping them into her girdle.

Basically, Corporation Counsel argues that respondent used her girdle as a kangaroo does her pouch, thus adapting it beyond, its maiden form.

The Law Guardian snaps back charging that with this artificial expansion of section 140.35’s meaning, the foundation of Corporation…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. BaerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  2. Edwards v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2008
  3. People v. BanisterCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2006
  4. Puglisi v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Edwards v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API