[*1]
People v Lewin (Bronia)
2006 NY Slip Op 50316(U) [11 Misc 3d 131(A)]
Decided on March 1, 2006
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 1, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and McCABE, JJ
2005-1481 W CR.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

Bronia Lewin and BORIS LEWIN, Appellants.


Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Tuckahoe, Westchester County (Michael P. O'Toole, J.), entered May 31, 2005. The judgments convicted defendants, after a nonjury trial, of violating sections 6-8 (b) and 6-37 of the Tuckahoe Village Code.


Judgments convicting defendants of violating Tuckahoe Village Code sections 6-8 (b) and 6-37 reversed on the law, accusatory instruments dismissed and fines, if paid, remitted.

Defendants were charged with violating section 6-37 of the Tuckahoe Village Code in that they permitted a contractor to remove the shingles from the roof of their premises in order to replace same, without first obtaining a building permit. In a separate accusatory instrument, defendants were also charged with violating section 6-8 (b) of said Code in that they removed a stop work order notice posted on their garage which stated thereon "Do Not Remove."

Section 6-37 of the Tuckahoe Village Code requires the homeowner or contractor to obtain a building permit for any home improvement prior to commencing work. An exception exists for ordinary repairs, not structural in nature. Although replacement of the shingles on a roof is not merely an aesthetic undertaking, it is also not a structural alteration and should be regarded as an ordinary repair. Since the Code does not require a building permit for ordinary repairs, the judgment convicting defendants of violating section 6-37 should be reversed and the accusatory instrument charging a violation of same dismissed. As to the removal of the stop work order, since a building permit was not required, the stop work order was ineffective and its removal cannot be a valid basis for conviction.

Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and McCabe, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 1, 2006