People v. Iannelli

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 69 N.Y.2d 684, 512 N.Y.S.2d 16, 504 N.E.2d 383, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21302

Decision Date: 12/19/1986

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Iannelli, 69 N.Y.2d 684, 512 N.Y.S.2d 16, 504 N.E.2d 383, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21302 (1986)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1986

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 113 decisions

113

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.100

N.Y.4

N.Y. App. Term.3

N.Y. App. Term2

2d Cir.1

Ind. Ct. App.1

Most recently cited by10

2026People v. Cuevas N.Y. App. Div.
2023People v. Turner N.Y. App. Div.
2023People v. McWilliams N.Y. App. Div.
2023People v. Ramirez N.Y. App. Div.
2022People v. Scafe (Naheem) N.Y. App. Term.
2021People v. Espinal (Douglas) N.Y. App. Term.
2019People v. Rice N.Y. App. Div.
2018People v. Bruce-Ross (Duncan) N.Y. App. Term.
2016People v. Martin N.Y. App. Div.
2015People v. Jackson N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 4 cases

New York v. Luis J.
People v. Thomas
People v. Dozier
People v. Bakolas

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marie Iannelli, Also Known as Marie Ianelli and Anna Jannelli, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Spiros A. Tsimbinos for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Thomas E. Greiff, Barbara D. Underwood and Peter A. Weinstein of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.

Viewed in a light most favorable to the People, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish defendant’s commission of aggravated disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.21).

Defendant’s claim that the statute violates the due process and establishment clauses of the United States Constitution (US Const 14th and 1st Amends) has not been preserved for our review. Defendant did not move pursuant to CPL 170.30 (1) (a) and CPL 170.35 (1) (c) within the time prescribed by CPL 170.30 (2) and CPL 255.20 (1) for dismissal of the accusatory instrument (compare, People v Bakolas, 59 NY2d 51, 53), and indeed never made her position on this issue known to the trial court before, during or after the trial. As we noted in People v Thomas (50 NY2d 467, 473), "the rule requiring a defendant to preserve his points for appellate review applies generally to claims of error involving Federal constitutional rights”. The rule was applied in People v Dozier (52 NY2d 781, 783) to foreclose a constitutional challenge to the statute defining third degree rape (Penal Law § 130.25 [2]) based on alleged discrimination on account of sex and violation of due process because it eliminates the mens rea element (another constitutional challenge to the statute, which was properly raised, was considered and rejected) (see also, People v Drummond, 40 NY2d 990, cert denied sub nom. New York v Luis J., 431 US 908).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.