People v Amerada Hess Corp. (2004 NY Slip Op 50451(U))

People v Amerada Hess Corp.

2004 NY Slip Op 50451(U)

Decided on May 20, 2004

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,

against

AMERADA HESS CORPORATION and HESS MART, INC., Respondent.

(J. Asarch, J.), dated June 16, 2003, granting defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument (196 Misc 2d 426 [2003]).

Defendant was charged with violating article 33, section 336 of the Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance, and a bench trial was subsequently held. Upon the completion of the People's case, defendant moved to dismiss "on the failure of proof," "on the issue of preemption" and "on constitutional grounds." The trial court
denied defendant's motion with respect to the ground of the failure of proof and
reserved decision as to the other grounds. At the conclusion of the trial, defendant renewed its motion to dismiss on the undecided grounds and the court reserved its decision on the motion and "on the trial." Thereafter, in a six-page "Decision After Trial" dated June 16, 2001, the court stated "that the Town [was] preempted .... Accordingly, the defendant is found not guilty."

Although the trial court utilized the expression, "not guilty", a review of the record indicates that the court did not adjudicate the facts going to defendant's guilt or innocence of violating article 33, section 336 of the Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinance. Rather, the court granted defendant's pending motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument after finding that there was a legal impediment to his prosecution thereon on the ground of preemption, as a matter of law. Consequently, contrary to defendant's contention, the People were allowed to appeal from the order as a matter of right (see People v Schaum, 98 NY2d 667 [2002]). Moreover, it is well settled that state law preempts the Town of Hempstead from regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages (see Exxon v Grucci, 270 AD2d 263 [2000]; People v Mobil, NYLJ, Jan. 7, 2004 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, we find that the court below [*2]properly dismissed the accusatory instrument.