People v. Nelson
309 N.Y. 231, 128 N.E.2d 391 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord who has actual knowledge of conditions in their building that violate a public safety statute, such as the Multiple Dwelling Law, can be found guilty of manslaughter if those violations proximately cause a person's death. Formal administrative notice of the violation is not required for criminal liability to attach.
Facts:
- The defendant, Nelson, purchased a multiple-dwelling building where he had been a tenant for over fifteen years.
- At the closing of title, the deed and a title insurance report noted existing violations of the Multiple Dwelling Law, specifically the lack of a sprinkler system and a secondary means of egress.
- Nelson demonstrated knowledge of the unsafe conditions by telling a tenant he had nailed the roof scuttle shut and by having a real estate agent inform him of the need for fire escapes.
- Nelson had made measurements for the installation of fire escapes but had not yet installed them.
- On November 17, 1952, a fire started while Nelson was heating tar in the basement to repair the roof.
- The fire spread, and two tenants died because the building's lack of legally required fire protection prevented their escape.
- On the day of the fire, Nelson admitted to an assistant fire marshal that he knew he was supposed to have fire escapes or a sprinkler system.
Procedural Posture:
- Nelson was indicted in the County Court of Kings County for manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree.
- At trial, the court ruled that a lack of formal notice of the building code violations was not a defense.
- A jury convicted Nelson on both counts.
- Nelson, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department.
- The Appellate Division modified the judgment by vacating the sentence for the second-degree manslaughter conviction but affirmed the first-degree manslaughter conviction.
- Nelson, as appellant, was granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
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 a landlord's failure to remedy known safety violations required by the Multiple Dwelling Law, which results in a tenant's death, constitute first-degree manslaughter based on the commission of a misdemeanor, even if the landlord did not receive formal notice of the violations from a government agency?
Opinions:
Majority - Dye, J.
Yes. A landlord's failure to remedy known safety violations can constitute first-degree manslaughter if a death results. The court held that formal notice of a violation is not a prerequisite for a criminal proceeding. The record contained ample proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of the hazardous conditions, including documentary evidence from the property purchase and his own admissions. This continuing and knowing omission to provide required fire protection was a misdemeanor 'affecting the person... killed' under Penal Law § 1050 and constituted culpable negligence under § 1052. The court distinguished this from cases requiring specific intent, emphasizing the 'onerous' duty the legislature placed on property owners to protect human life in congested urban housing.
Dissenting - Van Voorhis, J.
No. A conviction for misdemeanor-manslaughter should require proof that the defendant was consciously aware of the facts constituting the underlying misdemeanor. The dissent argued that the trial court erred by excluding the defendant's lack of knowledge as a defense, effectively turning manslaughter into a strict liability offense. This approach, which the dissent labeled 'constructive crime,' improperly transfers intent from a minor regulatory offense (malum prohibitum) to a major felony without requiring any moral culpability or criminal intent for the underlying act. According to the dissent, the phrase 'engaged in committing a misdemeanor' implies conscious participation, and a defendant should not be found guilty of manslaughter in 'complete moral innocence' without at least knowing that a dangerous condition existed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that public welfare statutes, like housing codes, can form the basis for serious felony charges. It lowers the bar for prosecutors in misdemeanor-manslaughter cases by establishing that actual knowledge of a dangerous condition is sufficient to prove culpability, removing the need to show receipt of formal administrative notice. The ruling places a significant burden on landlords to be proactively aware of and compliant with safety laws, signaling that a failure to do so can lead to felony convictions if a death occurs. It distinguishes between ignorance of the law (no excuse) and ignorance of the facts, but holds that in this case, the facts clearly showed the defendant's knowledge of the dangerous conditions.
