People v. Califano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Califano

2017 NY Slip Op 7613, 155 A.D.3d 647, 62 N.Y.S.3d 812

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2017

Docket2016-03125

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7613 (People v. Califano) 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

People v. Califano, 2017 NY Slip Op 7613, 155 A.D.3d 647, 62 N.Y.S.3d 812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (McDonald, J.), rendered March 18, 2016, convicting him of disorderly conduct, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [3]), based upon evidence that he engaged in conduct that included repeatedly making loud, obscene, and profanity-laced comments directed at a police officer and other people on a public street in a residential area at approximately 10:00 p.m. on February 15, 2014. Evidence was also adduced that the defendant threatened one of his neighbors with physical harm.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of disorderly conduct. The defendant’s disruptive behavior recklessly created “ ‘a potential or immediate public problem’ ” (People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128 [2011], quoting People v Munafo, 50 NY2d 326, 331 [1980]), and there was adequate proof from which the jury reasonably could conclude that the defendant’s conduct created at least the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm (see People v Weaver, 16 NY3d at 128). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 29 [1981]) and, in any event, without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (McDonald, J.), rendered March 18, 2016, convicting him of disorderly conduct, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [3]), based upon evidence that he engaged in conduct that included repeatedly making loud, obscene, and profanity-laced comments directed at a police officer and other people on a public street in a residential area at approximately 10:00 p.m. on February 15, 2014. Evidence was also adduced that the defendant threatened one of his neighbors with physical harm.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of disorderly conduct. The defendant’s disruptive behavior recklessly created “ ‘a potential or immediate public problem’ ” (People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128 [2011], quoting People v Munafo, 50 NY2d 326, 331 [1980]), and there was adequate proof from which the jury reasonably could conclude that the defendant’s conduct created at least the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm (see People v Weaver, 16 NY3d at 128). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 29 [1981]) and, in any event, without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7613, 155 A.D.3d 647, 62 N.Y.S.3d 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-califano-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack