People v. Dioquardo

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dioquardo

104 N.E.2d 881, 303 N.Y. 514

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 13, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 104 N.E.2d 881 (People v. Dioquardo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Dioquardo, 104 N.E.2d 881, 303 N.Y. 514 (N.Y. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The information charges a violation of section 722 of the Penal Law by name although not by section number. There is no requirement that the section number be mentioned. Indeed, the presence of the number is unnecessary and surplusage. (People v. Adler, 174 App. Div. 301, 303; see, also, People v. Dwyer, 160 App. Div. 542, 547, affd. 215 N. Y. 46.) The information also sets forth, with sufficient certainty and particularity, the act constituting that offense, which the defendant concedes to be disorderly conduct. It was sufficient to justify [516]*516the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus, the court had jurisdiction both of the person of the defendant and the subject matter of the charge.

The allegations in the information to the effect that the defendant’s act violated section 43 of the Penal Law and openly outraged public decency — the language of section 43 — -are unnecessary matter, and may be disregarded.

The improper designation in the information of disorderly conduct as a “ crime ” instead of “ offense ” is an irregularity which the defendant waived when he entered his plea of guilty.

The defendant was properly convicted of disorderly conduct. We pass upon no other question.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The information charges a violation of section 722 of the Penal Law by name although not by section number. There is no requirement that the section number be mentioned. Indeed, the presence of the number is unnecessary and surplusage. (People v. Adler, 174 App. Div. 301, 303; see, also, People v. Dwyer, 160 App. Div. 542, 547, affd. 215 N. Y. 46.) The information also sets forth, with sufficient certainty and particularity, the act constituting that offense, which the defendant concedes to be disorderly conduct. It was sufficient to justify [516]*516the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus, the court had jurisdiction both of the person of the defendant and the subject matter of the charge.

The allegations in the information to the effect that the defendant’s act violated section 43 of the Penal Law and openly outraged public decency — the language of section 43 — -are unnecessary matter, and may be disregarded.

The improper designation in the information of disorderly conduct as a “ crime ” instead of “ offense ” is an irregularity which the defendant waived when he entered his plea of guilty.

The defendant was properly convicted of disorderly conduct. We pass upon no other question.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 N.E.2d 881, 303 N.Y. 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dioquardo-ny-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack