People v. Licata
268 N.E.2d 787, 320 N.Y.S.2d 53, 28 N.Y.2d 113 (1971)
Sections
Rule of Law:
The purchase of an admission ticket does not revoke a prior lawful order excluding an individual from a private venue, as such a transaction lacks the necessary contractual meeting of the minds to override a specific ban.
Facts:
- Detectives at Aqueduct Race Track served the defendant with a written notice ordering him not to enter or remain on the premises at any time due to a prior bookmaking conviction.
- Upon receiving the exclusion notice, the defendant threw it on the floor and verbally declared his intention to return.
- Four months later, the defendant purchased an admission ticket and entered the race track premises.
- A racing bureau detective recognized the defendant inside the track and approached him to enforce the exclusion order.
- The detective verbally confronted the defendant, reminding him that the 'boss' said he would be jailed if he returned.
- The defendant responded with an obscenity and attempted to flee by running away inside the track.
- Detectives pursued and apprehended the defendant on the premises.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged the defendant with criminal trespass in the third degree.
- The trial court convicted the defendant and sentenced him to five days in jail.
- The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the purchase of an admission ticket by a person previously barred from a race track constitute a valid license to enter that countermands the prior exclusion order, thereby shielding the person from criminal trespass charges?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Jasen
No, the purchase of an admission ticket does not revoke a prior lawful exclusion order. The Court reasoned that while a ticket generally creates a license to enter, this license is revocable and subject to limitations. A ticket transaction via a cashier, whose only authority is to sell tickets to the general public, does not create a 'meeting of the minds' sufficient to override a specific, written ban issued by the track's protective bureau. Furthermore, the Court noted that relevant state regulations require tracks to exclude bookmakers; allowing a simple ticket purchase to nullify a ban would make these regulations impossible to enforce. Finally, the Court held that even if the ticket initially granted access, the detective's verbal warning constituted a revocation of that license, and the defendant's subsequent flight confirmed he was 'remaining unlawfully' on the premises.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the property rights of venue operators and clarifies the limits of the license granted by an admission ticket. It establishes that a general offer of admission (a ticket) cannot inadvertently supersede a specific, individualized exclusion order. Legally, this distinguishes between the administrative act of selling a ticket and the executive authority to ban individuals. For future cases, this implies that 'undesirable' patrons cannot use the anonymity of a ticket booth to bypass legal bans, and it supports the enforcement of criminal trespass statutes against those who re-enter private property after being told to stay away, regardless of how they gained entry.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Licata (1971)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"