People v. Christo

Memorandum. Judgment reversed and information dismissed. Appellant was convicted of disorderly conduct and of being “ a disorderly person ” on the charge she allowed “ two cats to run at large ” in violation of an ordinance of the Village of Freeport (Ch. I, Ordinance 1.1). The proof is that on two occasions a cat .owned by defendant was on her next-door neighbor’s lawn. The neighbor is a policeman and he prosecuted the case. The proof is insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt of this quasi-criminal offense and its resultant adjudication of disorderly person status beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s land was fenced in and the ability of her cats on two single occasions to get over or through 679 the fence is not sufficient to bring home to appellant a personal quasi-criminal responsibility based on the allegation in the information that she did “ allow two cats to run at large Additionally, the term ‘1 run at large ’ ’ in relation to domestic animals does not normally mean that an animal is found on a neighbor’s property in an isolated instance. The term has had a consistent judicial construction to mean a more generalized wandering or running of animals (Shepherd v. Hees, 12 Johns. 433; Coles v. Burns, 21 Hun 246; 3 C. J. S., Animals, § 131). Chief Judge Fttld and Judges Van Vooehis, Bueke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel concur. Judgment reversed, etc.