From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hanneman

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 2008
19 Misc. 3d 73 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)

Opinion

No. 570221-06.

May 7, 2008.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Richard M. Weinberg, J.), rendered March 10, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of disorderly conduct.

Legal Aid Society, New York City ( Steven Banks and Frances Gallagher of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Dana Poole of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MCKEON, P.J., DAVIS and SCHOENFELD, JJ.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Judgment of conviction, rendered March 10, 2006, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and fine and surcharge remitted.

The information charging defendant with disorderly conduct ( see Penal Law § 240.20) was jurisdictionally defective, since it failed to allege "the essential element of either intent or recklessness" ( People v Tarka, 75 NY2d 996, 997). Contrary to the People's contention, defendant's requisite intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm is not properly inferable from the single hand gesture attributed to defendant in the information or its unadorned allegations that defendant became "irate and loud" ( see People v Letang, 14 Misc 3d 139[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50318[U], lv denied 8 NY3d 987; cf. People v Inserra, 4 NY3d 30).

Moreover, a case of disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.20 (3) was not made out beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, failed to establish that defendant intended to cause or recklessly created the risk of "a potential or immediate public problem" ( People v Munafo, 50 NY2d 326, 331) when she extended or "flip[ped]" her middle finger while initially walking past the complainant or in speaking loudly, but so far as shown neither abusively nor obscenely, during their subsequent verbal exchange.


Summaries of

People v. Hanneman

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 2008
19 Misc. 3d 73 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Hanneman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BARBARA HANNEMAN…

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 7, 2008

Citations

19 Misc. 3d 73 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 28174
860 N.Y.S.2d 788

Citing Cases

People v. Zuckerberg

o the precinct and started screaming. He did not testify that members of the public or other police officers…

People v. Yarborough

Additionally, the sufficiency of the Disorderly Conduct charge cannot be established under a Casey ( People…