People v. Davis

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Davis

82 Misc. 2d 41, 370 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2552

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 19, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 Misc. 2d 41 (People v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Davis, 82 Misc. 2d 41, 370 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law, information dismissed and fine remitted.

Defendant was charged with driving while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1192, subd 1), resisting arrest (Penal Law, § 205.30) and disorderly conduct (Penal Law, § 240.20). At the close of the People’s case, defendant moved to dismiss the latter two charges upon the ground that the People failed to establish a prima facie case. The court in granting the motion added a count of harassment upon which defendant now stands convicted. Defendant failed to specifically object to the court’s ruling. There was no” need for defendant to formally except to the court’s ruling. A party who has without success requested a particular ruling is deemed to have thereby protested the court’s ultimate disposition or failure to rule accordingly sufficiently to raise a question of law with respect to such failure regardless of whether any actual protest thereto was registered (CPL 470.05, subd 2; see, also, CPL 470.15, subd 1).

We note that harassment is not a lesser included offense of either disorderly conduct or resisting arrest. Harassment and disorderly conduct are violations and therefore one cannot be a lesser included offense of the other since they are of the same grade or degree (CPL 1.20, subd 37; People v Flores, 42 AD2d 431). Harassment cannot be considered a lesser included offense of resisting arrest because the former requires proof of an element — an intent to harass, annoy or alarm — which is not required to establish the crime of resisting arrest. Certainly the intent to prevent an authorized arrest does not include an intent to harass, annoy or alarm (see People v Moyer, 27 NY2d 252). Therefore, the harassment count, not being a lesser included offense, although supported by the factual allegations of the information, could only be added [43]*43upon application of the People with notice to the defendant prior to the commencement of trial (CPL 100.45, subd 3).

Concur: Groat, P. J., Hargett and Pino, JJ.

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

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law, information dismissed and fine remitted.

Defendant was charged with driving while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1192, subd 1), resisting arrest (Penal Law, § 205.30) and disorderly conduct (Penal Law, § 240.20). At the close of the People’s case, defendant moved to dismiss the latter two charges upon the ground that the People failed to establish a prima facie case. The court in granting the motion added a count of harassment upon which defendant now stands convicted. Defendant failed to specifically object to the court’s ruling. There was no” need for defendant to formally except to the court’s ruling. A party who has without success requested a particular ruling is deemed to have thereby protested the court’s ultimate disposition or failure to rule accordingly sufficiently to raise a question of law with respect to such failure regardless of whether any actual protest thereto was registered (CPL 470.05, subd 2; see, also, CPL 470.15, subd 1).

We note that harassment is not a lesser included offense of either disorderly conduct or resisting arrest. Harassment and disorderly conduct are violations and therefore one cannot be a lesser included offense of the other since they are of the same grade or degree (CPL 1.20, subd 37; People v Flores, 42 AD2d 431). Harassment cannot be considered a lesser included offense of resisting arrest because the former requires proof of an element — an intent to harass, annoy or alarm — which is not required to establish the crime of resisting arrest. Certainly the intent to prevent an authorized arrest does not include an intent to harass, annoy or alarm (see People v Moyer, 27 NY2d 252). Therefore, the harassment count, not being a lesser included offense, although supported by the factual allegations of the information, could only be added [43]*43upon application of the People with notice to the defendant prior to the commencement of trial (CPL 100.45, subd 3).

Concur: Groat, P. J., Hargett and Pino, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Misc. 2d 41, 370 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-davis-nyappterm-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack