People v. Nelson

309 N.Y. 231 (1955)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was attempting to repair a leak in the roof of his multiple dwelling apartment house. The tar caught fire and despite his best efforts spread to the building. D ran to alarm to the tenants. It was too late. Two tenants jumped from the fourth-story window and were badly injured. One died and a third tenant trapped in her apartment was burned to death. On the day of the fire, D had told the fire marshal that 'he knew he was supposed to have fire escapes or a sprinkler.' The indictment charged manslaughter in the first degree insofar as the death of two persons was caused by a fire which occurred in D's multiple dwelling. The second count charged manslaughter in the second degree by reason of the fact that under the same circumstances of ownership D 'willfully and wrongfully used said building' in an unlawful manner and 'with gross and culpable negligence' owned, operated and neglected to render the 'building safe for the tenants and occupants thereof' by failing to provide adequate fire protection as required by law, and thereby caused the death of two persons. D conceded that his premises were existing in violation of the safety provisions required by the Multiple Dwelling Law and that such violations were the proximate cause of the death of two tenants. The evidence showed that D had been a tenant of the subject premises for over fifteen years; that he was well familiar with its physical aspects, including lack of sprinkler system and secondary egress for use in case of fire. D even negotiated with the then owner to purchase the premises. At the closing of title on June 15, 1951, D was present and represented by attorneys. A report furnished by the company issuing the title insurance noted violations of the Multiple Dwelling Law and these were set forth in a deed which was given subject to such violation. D was convicted on both counts. D appealed contending that his lack of notice was a proper defense to the charges.