People v. Pappalardo

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pappalardo

180 Misc. 2d 707, 693 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 265

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 180 Misc. 2d 707 (People v. Pappalardo) 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. Pappalardo, 180 Misc. 2d 707, 693 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order dated August 21, 1997 reversed, on the law, motion denied, verdict reinstated, and the matter remanded to Criminal Court for sentencing.

After rendition of a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of obstructing governmental administration, Criminal Court granted defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict (CPL 330.30 [1]) upon the sole ground that the underlying accusatory instrument was facially insufficient. On the People’s appeal, we find no jurisdictional defect and, accordingly, reverse and reinstate the verdict.

The allegations set out in the underlying accusatory instrument that defendant offered to pay a sum of money to three named New York City police officers “so that the officers would not serve defendant with a Criminal Court summons” were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant, through an “independently unlawful act”, intended to interfere with the officers’ “official function” (Penal Law § 195.05; see, People v Barrett, 179 Misc 2d 261; see also, People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133). Defendant’s contention that the prosecution was required to include in its pleading an additional allegation that the officers’ conduct in serving the summons was “authorized” is an “unacceptably hypertechnical interpretation of the pleading requirements.” (People v Barrett, supra, 179 Misc 2d, at 262; see also, People v Lane, 190 AD2d 604, lv denied 81 NY2d 1015; cf., Matter of Anthony B., 201 AD2d 725.)

Parness, P. J., and Freedman, J., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order dated August 21, 1997 reversed, on the law, motion denied, verdict reinstated, and the matter remanded to Criminal Court for sentencing.

After rendition of a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of obstructing governmental administration, Criminal Court granted defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict (CPL 330.30 [1]) upon the sole ground that the underlying accusatory instrument was facially insufficient. On the People’s appeal, we find no jurisdictional defect and, accordingly, reverse and reinstate the verdict.

The allegations set out in the underlying accusatory instrument that defendant offered to pay a sum of money to three named New York City police officers “so that the officers would not serve defendant with a Criminal Court summons” were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant, through an “independently unlawful act”, intended to interfere with the officers’ “official function” (Penal Law § 195.05; see, People v Barrett, 179 Misc 2d 261; see also, People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133). Defendant’s contention that the prosecution was required to include in its pleading an additional allegation that the officers’ conduct in serving the summons was “authorized” is an “unacceptably hypertechnical interpretation of the pleading requirements.” (People v Barrett, supra, 179 Misc 2d, at 262; see also, People v Lane, 190 AD2d 604, lv denied 81 NY2d 1015; cf., Matter of Anthony B., 201 AD2d 725.)

Parness, P. J., and Freedman, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 Misc. 2d 707, 693 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pappalardo-nyappterm-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack