People v. Cuvelier
| Decision Date | 14 November 1957 |
| Citation | 8 Misc.2d 823,167 N.Y.S.2d 871 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of The State of New York v. Vernon CUVELIER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Castle, Fitch, Swan & Dividio, Rochester, Anthony L. Dividio, Rochester, of Counsel, for appellant.
Roger E. Davis, Wayne County Dist. Atty., Savannah, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Police Court of the Village of Wolcott, New York, convicting the defendant of disorderly conduct and fining him $10.
From the evidence, the Police Justice must have found the following facts:
The defendant, his wife, and another couple entered a restaurant in the Village of Wolcott, New York, at about 11 o'clock on the night of September 2, 1956. They had all been to a clambake and had gone to the restaurant to eat. After leaving the clambake, the defendant had been at a bar or grill where he had had a drink of scotch.
When the defendant and his party entered the restaurant in Wolcott, New York, the complainant, Sgt. A. B. Jackman of the State Police and Trooper E. R. Stangel were sitting on stools at the counter. The defendant sat at a stool immediately to the left of Sgt. Jackman and the rest of the party sat on stools to the left of the defendant.
The trooper and the defendant became engaged in conversation during the course of which Sgt. Jackman asked the defendant if he had been to the clambake, to which the defendant replied in the affirmative. When asked by Sgt. Jackman who was driving, the defendant stated that he was. Sgt. Jackman then informed the defendant that there had been an accident at or near the clambake and that it was fellows like the defendant who caused fatalities. He then advised the defendant, Vernon Cuvelier, that he was in no condition to drive. The defendant then asked the trooper who was going to stop him and the trooper said 'if you are going to drive, I will stop you'.
The defendant then said 'well you sons of bitches aren't going to stop me from driving my car'. Sgt. Jackman then arrested the defendant for disorderly conduct.
The evidence in the case indicates that no particular number of persons collected about, nor did the proprietor of the restaurant complain about defendant's conduct or demand his arrest or removal from the premises.
The sole question to be determined upon this appeal is whether the words so spoken by the defendant constitute the offense of disorderly conduct.
It has been held that the calling of a Police Officer a 'son of a bitch' in a tone of voice loud enough to be heard across the street, is disorderly conduct. People v. Sadowsky, 149 Misc. 583, 267 N.Y.S. 762.
It has also been held that a person who hollers or talks in a loud voice to a Police Officer is not guilty of disorderly conduct even though a crowd collected, when such remarks are made in reply to an unwarranted accusation or request by a Police Officer. People v. Sternberg, 142 Misc. 602, 254 N.Y.S. 488; People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. La Sister
... ... Sternberg, 142 Misc. 602, 254 N.Y.S. 488, 489. See also People v. Chesnick, 302 N.Y. 58, 96 N.E.2d 87 and People v. Cuvelier, Co.Ct., 167 N.Y.S.2d 871 ... In addition, the language complained of was provoked, as testified to by the officer himself, because of his peering into the defendant's car and glancing at the woman seated therein ... As to subdivision 3, the complaint does not ... ...
-
James Burrough, Limited v. Ferrara
... ... and liquor, the relationship between their business and that of the plaintiffs is such that, if they be allowed to use the name Beefeater, people will naturally infer an association or connection of some sort between Beefeater gin and the defendants' restaurant. It is reasonable to suppose ... ...