People v. Kolb
| Decision Date | 30 December 1958 |
| Citation | 183 N.Y.S.2d 840,14 Misc.2d 976 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent, v. John KOLB, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
George N. Meyl, Dist. Atty. (by Condon A. Lyons, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albany), for the People.
Morris, Dillon & MacHarg, Albany (by Ernest B. Morris, Albany, of counsel), for defendant.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Police Court of Albany pursuant to which the defendant was adjudged guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of Subdivision 2 of Section 722 of the Penal Law. The pertinent part of the Penal Law in question reads as follows:
'Any person who with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned, commits any of the following acts shall be deemed to have committed the offense of disorderly conduct:
* * *
* * *
.
The defendant challenges the information as being insufficient and also argues that the evidence, in any event, fell short of that necessary to sustain conviction under the foregoing section.
It is charged that the defendant
'did, under circumstances whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned that while at the intersection of Quail Street and Morris Street (City of Albany) at about 6:45 o'clock p.m., he did act in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct and be offensive to others, to wit: By refusing to move on when ordered to do so by above said police officer at a time when the above said defendant was interfering with an (sic) accident when above said officer was trying to clear the street of a damaged automobile involved in the accident.'
In the first place, I am satisfied that the information was sufficient to allege the offense of disorderly conduct and thus to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court. Whether the information would be sufficient if it purported to allege a misdemeanor is a point that need not be passed upon herein. The fact remains, however, that an information charging an offense need not be drawn with all of the technical nicety required of an information charging a misdemeanor or, of course, an indictment. The foregoing information sufficiently apprises defendant of the offense charged. See People ex rel. Robinson v. Fennelly, 5 A.D.2d 71, 168 N.Y.S.2d 1018, affirmed 4 N.Y.2d 966, 177 N.Y.S.2d 494.
This brings us to the question of the sufficiency of the proof at the trial to sustain the conviction of the defendant. The incident leading to defendant's arrest arose following an automobile accident in which there was involved an automobile operated and apparently owned by one Miss Newell. The complaining police officer arrived at the scene shortly after the accident and found Miss Newell's car where it had come to rest, off the street upon a lawn nearby. There was evidence that the officer advised Miss Newell that the car would have to be towed away. Thereupon, according to the officer's testimony, he suggested that one of two towing companies could be called. He stated that she advised that 'Mike's' tow truck would be satisfactory, or words to that effect. Thereupon, the officer stated that he called 'Mike's' garage for a tow truck. In the meantime, Miss Newell went to a nearby public garage to make a telephone call.
After 'Mike's' truck had arrived upon the scene, Miss Newell returned to her automobile with the defendant. At this point the trouble commenced. According to the officer's testimony in the record, the defendant told the operator of the tow truck to let Miss Newell's car alone and that he (the defendant) 'was going to handle it'. At this point the police officer stated that a group of people were collecting and that there was interference with traffic at the street intersection. The officer testified that he told the defendant that 'We were handling it and it wasn't any of his business, and that the car was going to be towed and to please move away from the scene.' Thereupon, it appears that the defendant commenced to argue with the police officer.
It seems that the defendant was the operator of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Madnick
...misdemeanor grade' (People v. Skolnick, 200 Misc. 389, 108 N.Y.S.2d 857, 859, affirmed 303 N.Y. 630, 101 N.E.2d 704; People v. Kolb, 14 Misc.2d 976, 183 N.Y.S.2d 840; People v. Patrick, 175 Misc. 997, 999, 26 N.Y.S.2d 183, 185), it is a fundamental principal of law that an information which......
-
People ex rel. Siegal on Behalf of Schildhaus v. Dros
...the circumstances. See People v. Scott, 3 N.Y.2d 148, 164 N.Y.S.2d 707; People v. Levine, 308 N.Y. 685, 124 N.E.2d 322; People v. Kolb, 14 Misc.2d 976, 183 N.Y.S.2d 840. The charge in the complaint against the relator was definite and specific. The complainant was sworn, testified from his ......