From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lucchetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 1969
33 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Summary

stating in a memorandum decision that New York's reckless endangerment in the second degree statute is neither unconstitutionally vague nor indefinite

Summary of this case from State v. Vitale

Opinion

October 15, 1969


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 24, 1969, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law, § 120.20), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, section 120.20 Penal of the Penal Law is not unconstitutionally vague and indefinite (cf. People v. Eckert, 2 N.Y.2d 126). Reversal is not required because of the prosecutor's comments in summation, to which no objections were taken (cf. People v. Lee, 4 A.D.2d 770, affd. 4 N.Y.2d 843, cert. den. 358 U.S. 845; People v. Tuzio, 13 A.D.2d 842, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 1020). Defendant's other contentions have been examined and we find them untenable. Beldock, P.J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lucchetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 1969
33 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

stating in a memorandum decision that New York's reckless endangerment in the second degree statute is neither unconstitutionally vague nor indefinite

Summary of this case from State v. Vitale
Case details for

People v. Lucchetti

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES LUCCHETTI…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 15, 1969

Citations

33 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Citing Cases

State v. Vitale

Moreover, only a few courts in other states have decided vagueness claims based on reckless endangerment…

State v. Fredell

We note in passing that in two recent cases, a New York appellate court held that an identical phrase used in…