People v. Ashe, 166 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ashe, 166 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he officer was justified in concluding that the defendant in fact had no privilege to be on the premises of the apartment complex which, in light of the 'no trespassing' sign, the officer reasonably considered as being closed to the general public.”
14 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McKay v. City of New York (nysd, 2014-07-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) McKay v. City of New York
S.D.N.Y. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he officer was justified in concluding that the defendant in fact had no privilege to be on the premises of the apartment complex which, in light of the 'no trespassing' sign, the officer reasonably considered as being closed to the general public.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ciccone (Nicholas)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2020 · confidence medium
As a matter of "common sense and reasonable pleading" ( People v Davis , 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]; see People v Casey , 95 NY2d at 360 ), a defendant's knowledge of his or her unlawful presence may be inferred from the existence of "conspicuously posted rules or regulations governing entry and use" of a premises and an inability to provide a legitimate reason for that presence ( see People v Hill , 72 AD3d 702, 705 [2010]; People v Lightfoot , 22 AD3d 865, 866 [2005]; People v Babarcich , 166 AD2d 655, 656 [*3][1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lightfoot
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Under all of the circumstances, including the posted “no trespassing” warning in the lobby of the building, and the defendant’s answers to the officer’s questions, in which the defendant admitted that he did not live in the building and asserted that he knew no one there, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant for criminal trespass (see Matter of Darnel B., 248 AD2d 464, 465 [1998]; People v Babarcich, 166 AD2d 655, 656 [1990]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Lonique M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Appellant finally admitted the real reason he was in the building — to smoke marijuana on the sixth floor — and encouraged his friend to “[t]ell [the police] the truth” because he did not “want to get in trouble.” Appellant’s false statements to the police are evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v Ficarrota, 91 NY2d 244, 250 [1997]; see also People v Babarcich, 166 AD2d 655, 655 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 1019 [1990]).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Ivory Ashe
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 22, 1990.
166 A.D.2d 655
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 64%
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered December 10, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant contends for the first time on appeal that the court erred in excluding certain hearsay testimony relevant to his "innocent mind” defense. However, since the defendant neither objected to the court’s ruling nor made any offer of proof as to the nature, purpose or source of the hearsay, he failed to preserve the alleged error of law for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Black, 138 AD2d 498, 499; People v Billups, 132 AD2d 612, 613; People v Zambrano, 114 AD2d 872). Under the circumstances, we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Finally, we note that the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.