Citation Numbers: 170 Misc. 2d 598, 651 NYS2d 859
Judges: Wong
Filed Date: 8/6/1996
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/16/2022
OPINION OF THE COURT
Defendant, pro se, moves to dismiss the information "on the ground that the police officers’ arrest and arraignment of defendant was erroneous and false application of the relevant laws”. Defendant is charged with theft of services (Penal Law § 165.15 [2]) in that it is alleged in the information that the defendant "did order and consume two hundred and seventy three dollars worth of alcoholic beverages (receipt: Voucher #03511412) and did refuse to pay for said beverages. Deponent
The crux of the defendant’s argument is that alcoholic beverages are not covered under the restaurant services in the statute. Defendant cites People v Klas (79 Misc 452 [Onondaga County Ct 1913]). This case states that "[t]he statute, which it is claimed the defendant violated, only protects a hotel keeper for lodging, food and accommodations furnished, and in so far as the bar bill is for liquors no recovery can be had therefor” (supra, at 456).
The issue is whether the restaurant services in the statute cover alcoholic beverages. It appears from the defendant’s arguments and a reading of the statute that the alcoholic beverages are not restaurant services in that a bar is not necessarily a restaurant. The People have responded by simply stating some facts and not addressing the defendant’s legal arguments.
Accordingly, the accusatory instrument is defective in that it does not support every element of the offense charged (CPL 170.30 [1] [a]; 170.35 [1] [a]; 100.40 [1]; see also, People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133). Therefore, the information is dismissed. The execution of this order is stayed until September 6, 1996 in order to give the People an opportunity to research this issue and either make a motion to reargue or to file a proper accusatory instrument.