People v. Gilead

• Decision Date: 08 November 2021
• Docket Number: Docket No. CR 4404-20
• Citation: 154 N.Y.S.3d 749 (Table),73 Misc.3d 1215 (A)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Janel GILEAD, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

73 Misc.3d 1215 (A)

154 N.Y.S.3d 749 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York,

v.Janel GILEAD, Defendant.

Docket No. CR 4404-20

City Court, New York, Mount Vernon.

Decided on November 8, 2021

Westchester County District Attorney's Office, Mount Vernon Branch, Alex Ayoub, Esq., Attorney for Defendant, 700 White Plains Road, Suite 237, Scarsdale, NY 10583

Lyndon D. Williams, J.

A bench trial was held in this proceeding charging the defendant with harassment in the second degree pursuant to P.L. 240.26(1).

"A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: 1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same."

At trial the complainant, Jashima Eldridge, testified that she resides on the first floor of a 3-family dwelling. Defendant resides in the same building, but in another unit on the second floor. On September 24, 2020, Ms. Eldridge parked her car across the street from the building (approximately 30 feet from the entrance door). As complainant was walking across the street, using crutches because of a broken foot

, she observed the defendant driving. She testified that the defendant stopped the car in the middle of the street and started yelling that she wanted to fight the complainant. Ms. Eldridge stated that they exchanged words. During the argument, defendant got out of her car, approached Ms. Eldridge, and repeatedly stated, inter alia , "I want to fight, we can do this right now", "I can go to jail". She testified that the defendant also threatened to break her other foot. Ms. Eldridge stated that she was fearful because she had a broken foot, had to utilize crutches, and could not defend herself. She testified that defendant's teenage children and defendant's son's girlfriend surrounded her in the street and made threatening statements including defendant saying: "You and your children will be shot and found dead somewhere". However, she managed to get away from them and went inside and called the police. There was no physical contact between the complainant and defendant.

Defendant testified that she has been residing at the subject premises for three years. She stated that four months after moving in, the problems started between her and Ms. Eldridge. They would get into disputes about defendant's children. She testified that on September 23, 2020, the day before the alleged incident, she was informed that the complainant had approached her children. The next day, she observed Ms. Eldridge while she was driving. Defendant testified that while still inside of her vehicle, she stated "we can handle it right here" to the complainant, and that they were both grown women and should handle it between them. Defendant then got out of her vehicle and approached the complainant. She testified that she never threatened the complainant and that her children never approached the complainant. Defendant maintains that Ms. Eldridge has called the police on her 30 times and just wants to see her locked up. She further testified that she did not observe Ms. Eldridge on crutches the day of their confrontation.

In this case, the defendant is charged with harassment in the second degree for allegedly making verbal threats of physical contact. There was no testimony that any improper or attempted physical contact of any kind was committed by the defendant. "The crux of section P.L. § 240.26(1) is the element of physical contact: actual, attempted or threatened" ( People v Bartkow , 96 NY2d 770, 772 (2001) ). New York case law holds that "While genuine threats of physical harm fall within the scope of the statute, an outburst without more, does not violate the statute" ( People v Marom , 63 Misc 3d 145(A) ) (citing People v Dietze , 75 NY2d 47, 53-54 [1989] ; People v Todaro , 26 NY2d 325, 330 [1970] ; People v Ruggerio , 4 Misc 3d 133 [A] [App Term, 2d Dept. 9th & 10th Jud Dist 2004]).

Here, the defendant and the complaining witness have had a quarrelsome relationship for several years, which came to a boiling point on September 24, 2020. The defendant argues that the testimony taken at face value demonstrates that the People failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt because no proof was offered other than word of mouth, and that does not establish a clear and immediate threat under People v. Dietze , 75 NY2d 47.

The People argue that the defendant did not only engage in verbal threats but in other conduct including the defendant and her family members surrounding the complainant and blocking her path to the entrance door of her building while the complainant was temporarily disabled with a broken foot

. Also, the defendant's body language in approaching the complainant caused her to fear contacting Covid-19 because the defendant and her family members were not wearing masks. According to the People, the combination of defendant's verbal statements and attendant circumstances created an immediate threat to the complaining witness.

The dispute involves threatening statements and conduct allegedly engaged in by the defendant. The complaining witness testified that defendant pulled up in her car, got out and approached her saying "I want to fight, we can do this right now", "I can go to jail", "I'll break your other leg". At the outset, the court finds the statement "I can go to jail" is vague, ambiguous and is not a threat at all.

In...