People v. Hipple
| Decision Date | 09 January 1934 |
| Citation | 188 N.E. 725,263 N.Y. 242 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HIPPLE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Max Hipple was convicted in the City Magistrates' Court of New York City, of disorderly conduct, and, from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions unanimously affirming the judgment of the City Magistrates' Court, defendant, by permission, appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Court of Special Sessions of City of New York.
Lawrence Kovalsky and David Goldstein, both of New York City, for appellant.
Thomas C. T. Crain, Dist. Atty., of New York City (LeRoy Mandle, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant was charged with violation of Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40) § 722, subd. 3, which reads as follows:
He was convicted in the Magistrates' Court of the city of New York. Sentence was suspended. Judgment of conviction was affirmed in the Court of Special Sessions. Defendant contends that he did not perform the alleged acts of disorderly conduct ‘on a public street.’ The complaint charges that the offense was committed ‘in front of premises No. 22 West 31st Street’ in the city of New York. The officer who arrested defendant testified that he was ‘inside of a doorway’ when he was told to move on; the doorway of ‘a business building.’ A strike was in progress ‘up there.’ The court found that ‘no man, whether a walking delegate, or whatever he is, has a right to stand in the entrance of a business building,’ and said ‘his standing there, in the building, was calculated to cause a breach of the peace.’
We have given the language of Penal Law, § 722, a broad construction. A group of persons congregating on a public street may be dispersed, although their intent is orderly and inoffensive. Even then it may be said that ‘a breach of the peace may be occasioned.’ People v. Galpern, 259 N. Y. 279, 283, 181 N. E. 572, 573, 83 A. L. R. 785. By the language of the subdivision of the section the congregating must be ‘on a public street’ and the evidence negatives the claim that defendant was ‘on a public street.’ He has not committed the offense specified in subdivision 3 of section 722.
The learned district attorney contends that the people are not limited to the particular acts stated in subdivision 3 in order that defendant may be convicted of disorderly conduct.
Subdivision 2 provides generally that one is guilty of disorderly conduct who ‘acts in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others.’
The complaint charges an act which amounts to a breach of the peace whether performed on the street or in the hallway of a business building where people are going in and going...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Turner
...or another (People v. Carcel, 3 N.Y.2d 327, 331, 165 N.Y.S.2d 113, 115, 144 N.E.2d 81, 83, 65 A.L.R.2d 1145; People v. Hipple, 263 N.Y. 242, 244, 188 N.E. 725, 726). Such being the case, the convictions would be proper if based on proof of conduct violative of any subdivision and it is clea......
-
Thomas v. State
...Disorderly Conduct, § 2, p. 188; Anno. 83 A.L.R. 788; Bennett v. City of Dalton, 69 Ga.App. 438, 25 S.E.2d 726 (1943); People v. Hipple, 263 N.Y. 242, 188 N.E. 725 (1934); People v. Ward, 159 Misc. 328, 287 N.Y.S. 432 (1936); People, on Complaint of Whelan v. Friedman, 6 Misc.2d 271, 14 N.Y......
-
Kansas City v. Mathis, 24434
...29, 1961, p. 117, 'Arrest in Missouri', by John Scurlock, Professor of Law, University of Missouri at Kansas City.2 See People v. Hipple, 263 N.Y. 242, 188 N.E. 725, wherein the court said, 'The essence of the charge of disorderly conduct is that a breach of the peace may be occasioned by c......
-
People v. Galamison
...in the complaint with a violation of any one of the eleven subdivisions of Section 722 he may, under the holding in People v . Hipple, 263 N.Y. 242, 188 N.E. 725, be convicted of the offense if the proof establishes a violation of a different subdivision. This is not the precise holding of ......