Town of Somerset v. Perry, 115 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Town of Somerset v. Perry, 115 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …the crime of bail jumping does not require proof of any culpable mental state at p. 314 ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
33 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Houghtaling
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People were not required to prove that defendant received notice of the trial date inasmuch as “the crime of bail jumping does not require proof of any culpable mental state” (People v White, 115 AD2d 313, 314 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Houghtaling
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People were not required to prove that defendant received notice of the trial date inasmuch as “the crime of bail jumping does not require proof of any culpable mental state” (People v White, 115 AD2d 313, 314 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. De Stefano
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]; People v Hunter, 5 AD3d 607 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 801 [2004]), we find that it is sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of bail jumping in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 215.56), even in the absence of direct proof that he actually received notice of the arraignment date (see People v Halm, 256 AD2d 630, 631 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1049 [1999]; People v Santangelo, 194 AD2d 924, 924-925 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 726 [1993]; People v White, 115 AD…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kuey
NY · 1994 · confidence medium
However, the statute is silent on whether an updated report is needed at resentencing and the Departments of the Appellate Division are divided on the issue (compare, People v Laster, 140 AD2d 233 [1st Dept] [updated presentence report required at resentencing], with People v White, 115 AD2d 313, 315 [4th Dept] [updated presentence report not required where defendant has been continuously confined between time of initial report and sentencing]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Town of Somerset
v.
Charles Perry
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 15, 1985.
115 A.D.2d 313
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and application granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondents’ conversion of their property from a bargain store to a diner constituted a change of a nonconforming use under the town’s zoning ordinance for which a variance was required (Matter of Off Shore Rest. Corp. v Linden, 30 NY2d 160). In granting the variance the town’s requirement that respondents obtain a use variance with conditions was warranted. The record indicates that two conditions imposed by the town were violated. Moreover, since respondents failed to timely file a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the conditions contained in the variance, they are foreclosed from challenging them on appeal (see, Matter of Wolfram v Abbey, 55 AD2d 700; Town of N. Hempstead v De Feo, 27 AD2d 860). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Sedita, J.—permanent injunction.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.