People v. Knox

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Knox

346 N.E.2d 250, 38 N.Y.2d 865, 382 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2315

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 10, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 346 N.E.2d 250 (People v. Knox) 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. Knox, 346 N.E.2d 250, 38 N.Y.2d 865, 382 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2315 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s arrest was lawful in view of the proof that the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe that defendant had committed an offense in his presence (CPL 140.10, subd 1, par [a]). It is not necessary in this case to decide whether a defendant can be convicted under subdivision 1 of section 240.25 of the Penal Law for an oral threat of physical injury in the future (cf. People v Todaro, 26 NY2d 325). It suffices to note that there was reasonable ground for this officer to conclude here that the offense had been committed. On the predicate of the authorized arrest it follows that the convictions of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest should be affirmed.

Likewise the conviction of the substantive violation of harassment under subdivision 1 of section 240.25 of the Penal Law should be affirmed. Entirely apart from the oral outburst which led to defendant’s arrest, there was sufficient evidence that following the arrest and the assault and separate therefrom defendant physically threatened the arresting officer.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

[867]*867Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s arrest was lawful in view of the proof that the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe that defendant had committed an offense in his presence (CPL 140.10, subd 1, par [a]). It is not necessary in this case to decide whether a defendant can be convicted under subdivision 1 of section 240.25 of the Penal Law for an oral threat of physical injury in the future (cf. People v Todaro, 26 NY2d 325). It suffices to note that there was reasonable ground for this officer to conclude here that the offense had been committed. On the predicate of the authorized arrest it follows that the convictions of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest should be affirmed.

Likewise the conviction of the substantive violation of harassment under subdivision 1 of section 240.25 of the Penal Law should be affirmed. Entirely apart from the oral outburst which led to defendant’s arrest, there was sufficient evidence that following the arrest and the assault and separate therefrom defendant physically threatened the arresting officer.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

[867]*867Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 N.E.2d 250, 38 N.Y.2d 865, 382 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-knox-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack