People v. Evangelista (George)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Evangelista (George)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 4, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51287(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Evangelista (George) (People v. Evangelista (George)) 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. Evangelista (George), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

George Evangelista, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John J. Delury, J.H.O.), rendered March 24, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John J. Delury, J.H.O.), rendered March 24, 2016, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the information "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]) that it was legally sufficient to charge defendant with disorderly conduct. The "unreasonable noise" element of the offense (see Penal Law § 240.20[2]) was satisfied by sworn police allegations that at 4:15 a.m., on December 24, 2015, and in front of a specified street address, "defendant was playing aftermarket sound system from vehicle at unreasonable level, heard from more than two blocks away." Based upon these allegations, the factfinder could infer that defendant made noise of a type or volume that a reasonable person under the circumstances would not tolerate (see People v Bakolas, 59 NY2d 51, 54 [1983]), and that his conduct was intended to or recklessly created a substantial risk of a potential or immediate public problem (see People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128 [2011]; People v Munafo, 50 NY2d 326, 331 [1980]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility.

Defendant's challenge to the electronic recording of the proceeding below is unpreserved and no prejudice is apparent from the record (see People v Wanass, 55 Misc 3d 97 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1088 [2017]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 04, 2017

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

George Evangelista, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John J. Delury, J.H.O.), rendered March 24, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John J. Delury, J.H.O.), rendered March 24, 2016, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the information "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]) that it was legally sufficient to charge defendant with disorderly conduct. The "unreasonable noise" element of the offense (see Penal Law § 240.20[2]) was satisfied by sworn police allegations that at 4:15 a.m., on December 24, 2015, and in front of a specified street address, "defendant was playing aftermarket sound system from vehicle at unreasonable level, heard from more than two blocks away." Based upon these allegations, the factfinder could infer that defendant made noise of a type or volume that a reasonable person under the circumstances would not tolerate (see People v Bakolas, 59 NY2d 51, 54 [1983]), and that his conduct was intended to or recklessly created a substantial risk of a potential or immediate public problem (see People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128 [2011]; People v Munafo, 50 NY2d 326, 331 [1980]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility.

Defendant's challenge to the electronic recording of the proceeding below is unpreserved and no prejudice is apparent from the record (see People v Wanass, 55 Misc 3d 97 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1088 [2017]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 04, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Evangelista (George), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-evangelista-george-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack