In re Tyrone G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tyrone G.

74 A.D.3d 671, 902 N.Y.S.2d 362

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 2010·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about September 24, 2009, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of public lewdness, and placed him on probation for a period of nine months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence established the “lewd manner” element of public lewdness (Penal Law § 245.00). Appellant did not merely expose his private parts, but did so in the offensive manner at which the statute is aimed (see People v McNamara, 78 NY2d 626, 631 [1991]). Appellant exposed himself to a teacher’s assistant, and then did so again, this time calling out her name and behaving in a manner likely to ensure that she directed her attention to his exposed condition (see Matter of Jeffrey V., 185 AD2d 241 [1992]; see also People v Sullivan, 87 Misc 2d 254 [App Term, 2d Dept 1976]).

For the same reasons, we reject appellant’s related challenge to the jurisdictional sufficiency of the allegations in the petition. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about September 24, 2009, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of public lewdness, and placed him on probation for a period of nine months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence established the “lewd manner” element of public lewdness (Penal Law § 245.00). Appellant did not merely expose his private parts, but did so in the offensive manner at which the statute is aimed (see People v McNamara, 78 NY2d 626, 631 [1991]). Appellant exposed himself to a teacher’s assistant, and then did so again, this time calling out her name and behaving in a manner likely to ensure that she directed her attention to his exposed condition (see Matter of Jeffrey V., 185 AD2d 241 [1992]; see also People v Sullivan, 87 Misc 2d 254 [App Term, 2d Dept 1976]).

For the same reasons, we reject appellant’s related challenge to the jurisdictional sufficiency of the allegations in the petition. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

In re Tyrone G., 74 A.D.3d 671, 902 N.Y.S.2d 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

74 A.D.3d 671 (In re Tyrone G.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related