Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

People v. Vargas

People v. Vargas
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 7, 2005
8 Misc. 3d 113

Counsel

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Legal Aid Society, New York City (Laura R. Johnson and Robert Budner of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot and Michelle Cort of counsel), for respondent.

People v. Vargas

Opinion of the Court

*114OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

The defendant contends that any attempt to endanger the welfare of a child is legally impossible. Where a penal statute imposes strict liability for committing certain conduct, an attempt is legally cognizable, since one can attempt to engage in conduct (People v Prescott, 95 NY2d 655, 659 [2001]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the crime of endangering the welfare of a child proscribes particular conduct — the knowing acts likely to be injurious to the welfare of a child. Thus, the crime of attempted endangering the welfare of a child is not a legal impossibility.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal.

Pesce, EJ., Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.