People v. Tiffany

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tiffany

183 Misc. 2d 330, 705 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 634

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 183 Misc. 2d 330 (People v. Tiffany) 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. Tiffany, 183 Misc. 2d 330, 705 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[331]*331OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and accusatory instrument dismissed.

The factual allegations set forth in the accusatory instrument fail to establish, if believed, that the defendant acted with the requisite intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or that he recklessly created a risk thereof (Penal Law § 240.20). The defendant was merely stating his views on the state of the local police department, and the instrument indicates that the only effect of his actions was to cause people to leave the area. Entirely absent is any basis upon which to conclude that a breach of the peace was intended or at risk (see, People Mehdi, 29 NY2d 824; cf., People v Tichenor, 89 NY2d 769).

We note that an adjudication of criminal contempt pursuant to section 750 of the Judiciary Law is in the nature of a special civil proceeding and is therefore not appealable as part of a judgment of conviction.

Ingrassia, J. P., Palella and Levitt, JJ., concur.

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

[331]*331OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and accusatory instrument dismissed.

The factual allegations set forth in the accusatory instrument fail to establish, if believed, that the defendant acted with the requisite intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or that he recklessly created a risk thereof (Penal Law § 240.20). The defendant was merely stating his views on the state of the local police department, and the instrument indicates that the only effect of his actions was to cause people to leave the area. Entirely absent is any basis upon which to conclude that a breach of the peace was intended or at risk (see, People Mehdi, 29 NY2d 824; cf., People v Tichenor, 89 NY2d 769).

We note that an adjudication of criminal contempt pursuant to section 750 of the Judiciary Law is in the nature of a special civil proceeding and is therefore not appealable as part of a judgment of conviction.

Ingrassia, J. P., Palella and Levitt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 Misc. 2d 330, 705 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tiffany-nyappterm-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack