In re Joshua C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joshua C.

289 A.D.2d 1095, 735 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12878

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1095 (In re Joshua C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Joshua C., 289 A.D.2d 1095, 735 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging that respondent committed acts that if committed by an adult would constitute the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05). We conclude that Family Court properly granted the petition. Upon arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute between respondent’s parents, the Sheriff’s deputies directed respondent to leave the scene. Respondent refused to leave and instead continued his disruptive behavior. In addition, when a deputy removed respondent’s father to his patrol vehicle and transported him to another location in order to complete the investigation without interference, respondent walked to that location and continued his disruptive behavior. Respondent was then arrested when he approached a deputy who was trying to restrain respondent’s brother. Contrary to respondent’s contention, “inappropriate or disruptive conduct at the scene of the performance of an official function” falls within the ambit of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05) even where, as here, there is no physical force involved (Willinger v City of New Rochelle, 212 AD2d 526, 527; see, Matter of Davan L., 91 NY2d 88, 91-92; People v Tarver, 188 AD2d 938, lv denied 81 NY2d 893). Furthermore, we reject respondent’s contention that the investigation was unlawful because the deputies entered [1096]*1096respondent’s home without permission. The entry into the home upon responding to a report of a domestic dispute was permissible based on the possibility that an injured person was inside the home (see, People v Longboat, 278 AD2d 836, lv denied 96 NY2d 802). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ. (Filed Dec. 14, 2001.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging that respondent committed acts that if committed by an adult would constitute the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05). We conclude that Family Court properly granted the petition. Upon arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute between respondent’s parents, the Sheriff’s deputies directed respondent to leave the scene. Respondent refused to leave and instead continued his disruptive behavior. In addition, when a deputy removed respondent’s father to his patrol vehicle and transported him to another location in order to complete the investigation without interference, respondent walked to that location and continued his disruptive behavior. Respondent was then arrested when he approached a deputy who was trying to restrain respondent’s brother. Contrary to respondent’s contention, “inappropriate or disruptive conduct at the scene of the performance of an official function” falls within the ambit of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05) even where, as here, there is no physical force involved (Willinger v City of New Rochelle, 212 AD2d 526, 527; see, Matter of Davan L., 91 NY2d 88, 91-92; People v Tarver, 188 AD2d 938, lv denied 81 NY2d 893). Furthermore, we reject respondent’s contention that the investigation was unlawful because the deputies entered [1096]*1096respondent’s home without permission. The entry into the home upon responding to a report of a domestic dispute was permissible based on the possibility that an injured person was inside the home (see, People v Longboat, 278 AD2d 836, lv denied 96 NY2d 802). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ. (Filed Dec. 14, 2001.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1095, 735 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joshua-c-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack