People v. Williams (Juanita)

70 Misc. 3d 130(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 51526(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: December 18, 2020
• Docket: 570818/16
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Williams (2020 NY Slip Op 51526(U)) [*1]

People v Williams (Juanita)

2020 NY Slip Op 51526(U) [70 Misc 3d 130(A)]

Decided on December 18, 2020

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 18, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Cooper, J.P., Higgitt, McShan, JJ.
570818/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Juanita Williams, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Harold Adler, J.), rendered September 15, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting her of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Harold Adler, J.), rendered September 15, 2016, affirmed.

The information charging disorderly conduct was jurisdictionally valid because it contained nonconclusory factual allegations establishing "every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" (CPL 100.40[c]; see People v Wheeler, 34 NY3d 1134, 1135 [2020]). The instrument recited that defendant was "blocking the hallway" at Lincoln Hospital with a stretcher, and that when police asked her to move, "defendant began screaming, yelling ... PIGS, YOU CAN'T TALK HOWEVER YOU WANT TO ANYBODY"; that when the officer "attempted to walk away" defendant approached officers and stated "I SEE YOU ON THE STREETS, IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY, YOU'RE A FAGGOT, YOU'RE PIGS"; that "a crowd of persons were gathering in the hallway because of defendant's conduct"; and that defendant "then took [the officer's] identification and flicked [an officer] in the nose." Based upon these allegations, one could reasonably infer that defendant engaged in disruptive conduct that was "either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or was reckless in creating a risk of those consequences" (see People v Johnson, 22 NY3d 1162, 1164 [2014]; see People v Baker, 20 NY3d 354, 360 [2013]; People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: December 18, 2020