People v. Bubbs

CourtNew York County Court
Writing for the CourtLYMAN H. SMITH
Citation268 N.Y.S.2d 712,49 Misc.2d 757
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wayne BUBBS, Defendant.
Decision Date25 March 1966

Page 712

268 N.Y.S.2d 712
49 Misc.2d 757
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Wayne BUBBS, Defendant.
Yates County Court.
March 25, 1966.

Page 713

[49 Misc.2d 758] Grover C. Bradstreet, Jr., Bath, for defendant.

Frederick M. Hunt, Dist. Atty., Yates County for the People.

LYMAN H. SMITH, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of Subdivision 2 of Section 722 of the Penal Law, after a trial on January 4, 1966, before Police Justice FRED GUYLE, of the Village of Penn Yan, County of Yates, New York, sitting without a jury.

It is apparent from the transcript of the testimony and proceedings taken upon the trial that there was ample evidence for the court to find that the defendant engaged in the acts set forth in the information filed herein. Specifically, at about 9:30 P.M. on the night of November 23, 1965, the defendant, age 17, while operating his 1959 Rambler automobile in a southerly direction on Liberty Street in the Village of Penn Yan struck or 'tapped' the rear of a Volkswagen owned and driven by Miss Susan Gute, a teacher in the Penn Yan School system. The incident followed a basketball game between rival teams of Haverling High School, Bath, New York and Penn Yan, New York. At the time of the occurrence Miss Gute was accompanied by the Misses Strauss and Schleiermacher, also school teachers. The defendant had as passengers in his automobile four male companions of comparable age. The contact

Page 714

between the automobiles occurred while Miss Gute's automobile was slowing for a traffic signal, or was stopped for the same, at the corner of Liberty Street and Elm Street in said village. It is undisputed that no damage resulted; that after contact was made Miss Gute got out of her car to determine the foregoing and that the defendant stated, 'If you have any complaints, you can send Miss Strauss back to my car'. It is also undisputed that other traffic proceeding in the same direction was not disturbed by the incident. No crowd gathered. No one stopped to watch.

The defendant claims that there was no breach of the peace and that the peace and quiet of the community was not disturbed.

To constitute the offense charged here, 'The conduct charged must at least be such that a breach of the peace has become imminent or might reasonably be expected or intended to flow from such conduct.' (People v. Monnier, 280 N.Y. 77, 79, 19 N.E.2d 789, 790).

It is well settled law that the prime purpose of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Teelon v. State, No. 44382
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • March 29, 1966
    ...represents consequential damage to the remainder. The claimants are entitled to an award therefor together with appropriate interest. [49 Misc.2d 757] The claim was duly filed on October 9, 1964, and it has not been assigned or submitted to any other Court or tribunal for audit or The Court......
1 cases
  • Teelon v. State, No. 44382
    • United States
    • New York Court of Claims
    • March 29, 1966
    ...represents consequential damage to the remainder. The claimants are entitled to an award therefor together with appropriate interest. [49 Misc.2d 757] The claim was duly filed on October 9, 1964, and it has not been assigned or submitted to any other Court or tribunal for audit or The Court......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT