Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael THOMAS, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered October 15, 2018, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and theft of services, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 11/212 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
The misdemeanor information charging defendant with theft of services (Penal Law § 165.15[2]) was valid for jurisdictional purposes as it contained sufficient nonconclusory allegations that defendant was one of the individuals who entered a hotel and received spa services, then left without paying for them. Assuming these allegations to be true, they addressed each element of Penal Law § 165.15(2), and afforded reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense (see generally People v. Matthew P., 26 N.Y.3d 332, 335–36, 23 N.Y.S.3d 74, 44 N.E.3d 149 [2015]; see also People v. Jackson, 79 Misc.3d 127[A], 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50601[U], 2023 WL 4115765 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2023]; People v. Jones, 77 Misc.3d 5, 9–10, 175 N.Y.S.3d 413 [App. Term, 2d Dept. 2022], lv. denied 39 N.Y.3d 986, 181 N.Y.S.3d 196, 201 N.E.3d 813 [2022]; People v. Singleton, 73 Misc.3d 149[A], 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50011[U], 2022 WL 98156 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1035, 169 N.Y.S.3d 239, 189 N.E.3d 346 [2022]).
Contrary to defendant's contention, we find that the term “guest” of a hotel, as the term is used in Penal Law § 165.15(2), is not limited to individuals staying at the hotel. Rather, the term may also include individuals, such as defendant, who visit a hotel for other services the hotel may offer, such as for food, drink, or entertainment. This interpretation gives effect to the intention of the legislature, and is consistent with the statute's legislative history, contemporaneous statutes and precedent, and contemporaneous dictionary definitions from the time the statute was enacted (see generally People v. Mitchell, 38 N.Y.3d 408, 411, 174 N.Y.S.3d 1, 194 N.E.3d 708 [2022]; White v. Cuomo, 38 N.Y.3d 209, 220, 172 N.Y.S.3d 373, 192 N.E.3d 300 [2022]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 899-, 899A
Decided: October 24, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)