People v. Bubbs

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

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.

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 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 this section of the Penal Law is to preserve Public order and...