People v. Hill

CourtNew York County Court
Writing for the CourtLYMAN H. SMITH
Citation303 N.Y.S.2d 265,60 Misc.2d 277
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Steven C. HILL, Defendant.
Decision Date31 July 1969

Page 265

303 N.Y.S.2d 265
60 Misc.2d 277
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Steven C. HILL, Defendant.
Yates County Court.
July 31, 1969.

Page 266

[60 Misc.2d 278] Frederick M. Hunt, Dist. Atty., County of Yates, for the people.

Paul V. Miller, Naples, for defendant-appellant.

Page 267

MEMORANDUM DECISION

LYMAN H. SMITH, Judge.

Defendant-appellant has been convicted of Disorderly Conduct in violation of Subdivision 6 of Section 240.20 of the Penal Law, after a trial on June 5, 1969, before the Hon. Lyman Pierce, Acting Police Justice of the Village of Dundee, Yates County, New York, sitting without a jury.

On May 11, 1969, at about 3 A.M. in the Village of Dundee a single loud blast of an automobile horn attracted the attention of the Village Police Chief who, at that moment, was in the process of following in his patrol car a blue Ford automobile on one of the main thoroughfares of the Village, in an attempt to clock its speed. At the 'harsh' sound of the horn the officer broke off his chase of the Ford auto, executed a U-turn in the street and returned to a grocery parking lot where he had observed two parked vehicles and from which location he testified the sound of the horn had emanated.

The police chief, the People's only witness, identified the two parked vehicles as a Chevrolet and a Dodge, and also identified their several occupants, including the defendant-appellant as an occupant in the driver's seat of the Chevrolet. Upon direct examination and to the question, 'Are you sure from which vehicle the horn blast sounded?', the officer replied 'No, sir, I am not.'.

At the close of the People's case the defendant took the stand and testified he had heard an auto horn, but denied that he had sounded his horn. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the officer's information charged only that 'one of the vehicles blew their horn which caused a person in an apartment to look out and also a person who was working in a restaurant to look out of his window.'

Although the exact source was not established, the sound of the auto horn obviously triggered all that followed.

After stopping his patrol car, the officer asked the defendant-appellant, his passenger and the two young men occupying the [60 Misc.2d 279] Dodge automobile which one of them had sounded the horn. Each denied that any of them had done so. The officer then ordered all the young men to leave the parking lot and gave them 'five minutes to get out' or, in the alternative, stated that he would arrest them 'for disorderly conduct and loitering'.

Although the record is not clear as to the sequence of what happened next, it is clear a verbal exchange between these young men and the officer satisfied the officer that the appellant and the others had refused his command to disperse and that he should place all of them under arrest 'for loitering'.

Page 268

Near the close of the trial the transcript reveals the following colloquy between the Court and the officer:

Q. How long was it after you told them to disperse before you actually arrested them?

A. I would say no more tan two minutes on Steve--two or three minutes on Steve.

Q. But you did tell...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • People v. Hanson
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • September 11, 1998
    ...except for the action of the officer. Their conduct created an imminent risk of a breach of the peace, justifying arrest. People v. Hill, 60 Misc.2d 277, 303 N.Y.S.2d 265 (1969) People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 193 N.E. 175 (1934); People v. Montgomery, 17 N.Y.S.2d 71 (Chenango County Court 1......
  • People v. Tuzzolino, 2009 NY Slip Op 31680(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/28/2009), 46361
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • July 28, 2009
    ...Perhaps more importantly, it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to breach the peace. (People v Hill,60 Misc 2d 277.) Therefore, the statute of disorderly conduct may not be molded to fit the facts, and to warrant conviction, the facts must fit the disord......
  • State v. Anonymous (1976-9)
    • United States
    • Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut
    • January 1, 1976
    ...that a breach of the peace has become imminent or might reasonably be expected or intended to flow from such conduct." People v. Hill, 60 Misc.2d 277, 303 N.Y.S.2d 265, In the present cases, there has been no showing that a disruption was imminent. In fact, the three defendants did not even......
  • People v. Pettigrew
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • February 2, 1972
    ...v. McCauliff, 267 N.Y. 581, 196 N.E. 590 (1935) Peo. v. Reid, 180 Misc. 289, 40 N.Y.S.2d 793 (County Ct. Madison Co. 1943) Peo. v. Hill, 60 Misc.2d 277, 303 N.Y.S.2d 265 (County Ct. Yates Co. Peo. v. Chesnick, 302 N.Y. 58, 96 N.E.2d 87 (1950) The court will now consider each of these cases ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • People v. Hanson
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • September 11, 1998
    ...except for the action of the officer. Their conduct created an imminent risk of a breach of the peace, justifying arrest. People v. Hill, 60 Misc.2d 277, 303 N.Y.S.2d 265 (1969) People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 193 N.E. 175 (1934); People v. Montgomery, 17 N.Y.S.2d 71 (Chenango County Court 1......
  • People v. Tuzzolino, 2009 NY Slip Op 31680(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/28/2009), 46361
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • July 28, 2009
    ...Perhaps more importantly, it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to breach the peace. (People v Hill,60 Misc 2d 277.) Therefore, the statute of disorderly conduct may not be molded to fit the facts, and to warrant conviction, the facts must fit the disord......
  • State v. Anonymous (1976-9)
    • United States
    • Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut
    • January 1, 1976
    ...that a breach of the peace has become imminent or might reasonably be expected or intended to flow from such conduct." People v. Hill, 60 Misc.2d 277, 303 N.Y.S.2d 265, In the present cases, there has been no showing that a disruption was imminent. In fact, the three defendants did not even......
  • People v. Pettigrew
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • February 2, 1972
    ...v. McCauliff, 267 N.Y. 581, 196 N.E. 590 (1935) Peo. v. Reid, 180 Misc. 289, 40 N.Y.S.2d 793 (County Ct. Madison Co. 1943) Peo. v. Hill, 60 Misc.2d 277, 303 N.Y.S.2d 265 (County Ct. Yates Co. Peo. v. Chesnick, 302 N.Y. 58, 96 N.E.2d 87 (1950) The court will now consider each of these cases ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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