People v. Meath

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meath

219 A.D.2d 838, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10895

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 838 (People v. Meath) 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. Meath, 219 A.D.2d 838, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05). Defendant’s "acts constituted a knowing, physical interference with and disruption of the official function * * * being performed by [the officer]” (People v Tarver, 188 AD2d 938, lv denied 81 NY2d 893; see, People v Case, 42 NY2d 98, 102; People v Ravizee, 146 Misc 2d 679, 682-683).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Sirkin, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05). Defendant’s "acts constituted a knowing, physical interference with and disruption of the official function * * * being performed by [the officer]” (People v Tarver, 188 AD2d 938, lv denied 81 NY2d 893; see, People v Case, 42 NY2d 98, 102; People v Ravizee, 146 Misc 2d 679, 682-683).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Sirkin, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 838, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meath-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack