People v. Estime

• Decision Date: 06 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2016BX008368.,2016BX008368.
• Citation: 46 N.Y.S.3d 476 (Table)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Michael ESTIME, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

46 N.Y.S.3d 476 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York,
v.
Michael ESTIME, Defendant.

No. 2016BX008368.

Criminal Court, City of New York.

Sept. 6, 2016.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx County by Matthew Horowitz, Assistant District Attorney, for The People.

Law Office of Abdula R. Greene, P.C. by Abdula R. Greene, Esq., for Defendant.

ARMANDO MONTANO, J.

Defendant is charged with Resisting Arrest (PL § 205.30) and Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (PL § 195.05).

Defendant moves for an order: 1) dismissing the accusatory instruments facially insufficient; 2) suppressing any and all evidence seized as a result of unlawful police conduct, or in the alternative, granting a Mapp/Dunaway hearing; 2) suppressing any and all testimony regarding identifications of defendant, or in the alternative, granting a Wade/Dunaway hearing; 3) precluding the introduction of any unnoticed statement evidence; 4) precluding the People from introducing at trial any evidence of defendant's prior convictions and/or bad acts; and 5) granting defendant the right to make additional pretrial motions and the right to amend and/or supplement this motion if made necessary or appropriate by the People's future disclosure.

The factual allegations in the accusatory instrument sworn to by the deponent, PO Michelle Ghonz, read as follows:

Deponent states that [on or about February 23, 2016 at approximately 9:45 AM inside of 2899 Kingsbridge Terrace, County of the Bronx, State of New York], she was responding to a radio run of a trespass. Deponent further states that upon arrival, in the lobby, she met with a tenant and was investigating the trespass when defendant arrived in the lobby and stated, in sum and substance, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GUYS DOING HERE? Deponent further states that upon asking defendant for identification, defendant stated, in sum and substance, I'M NOT GIVING YOU SHIT, I DON'T HAVE TO DO SHIT. Deponent further states that upon informing defendant he would need to come to the precinct if he could not produce identification, defendant stated in a loud voice, in sum and substance, I'M NOT FUCKING GOING ANYWHERE! NO FUCK THAT!

Deponent further states that upon attempting to arrest defendant for the aforementioned conduct, defendant flailed his arms and flexed his body in an attempt to avoid being handcuffed.

Deponent further states that the defendant's aforementioned conduct prevented her from performing her official duties in that she could not further investigate the radio run for a trespass.

Defendant argues that the accusatory instrument must be dismissed because it fails to allege adequate facts of an evidentiary character which support all of the elements of the offenses charged. Defendant notes that the information explicitly alleges that the deponent officer arrested him for refusing to provide identification. Since a charge of Resisting Arrest must be premised upon a lawful arrest and his refusal to provide identification does not constitute a crime, defendant asserts that the charge of PL § 205.30 must be dismissed. With respect to the charge of Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, defendant avers that the information fails to establish that he prevented the performance of an official function by way of physical force or interference. At best, defendant contends that the information demonstrates that his actions temporarily distracted the deponent officer.

In opposition, the People assert that the information is facially sufficient in that it provides detailed facts which support the offenses charged and provides suitable notice to defendant to prepare a defense. When given a fair reading, the People argue that all of the elements of the offenses charged are supported by nonhearsay allegations of fact which provide reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offenses charged.

It is well settled that an information must contain facts of an evidentiary nature that support or tend to support the crimes charged (CPL § 100.15[3] ; People v. Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729 [1986] ) and contain non-hearsay allegations that establish, if true, every element of the crimes charged (CPL § 100.40 [1 ][c] ). Further, an information must provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crimes charged. CPL § 100.40(1)(b) ; Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686. Reasonable cause to believe that a defendant committed the crimes charged "exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and...