People v. Monnier
| Decision Date | 28 February 1939 |
| Citation | 19 N.E.2d 789,280 N.Y. 77 |
| Parties | PEOPLE on Complaint of WHITE v. MONNIER. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Essolene Monnier was convicted, by judgment of the Magistrates' Court of the City of New York, of disorderly conduct in violation of Penal Law, § 722, subds. 1, 2. From a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions affirming the judgment of conviction, defendant appeals by permission.
Reversed and information dismissed.
LEHMAN and O'BRIEN, JJ., dissenting. Appeal from Court of Special Sessions of City of New York, Appellate part.
Henry Salant, of New York City, for appellant.
Thomas E. Dewey, Dist. Atty., of New York City, for respondent.
Even assuming that this defendant called the complaining witness on the telephone and applied to her certain foul epithets which were overheard by the telephone operator, the defendant is not guilty of the offense of disorderly conduct as defined in section 722, subdivisions 1 or 2, of the Penal Law (Consol.Laws, c. 40). Such a person must act or speak either with an intent to provoke a breach of the peace or in such a manner ‘whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned.’ In the case at bar there is no evidence of an intent on the part of defendant to effect a breach of the peace, nor are the circumstances such as could possibly occasion such a breach. The means employed, to wit, the telephone, would seem to indicate a contrary intention.
In People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 193 N.E. 175, the proof showed that a restaurant owner and his employee struck with their fists an acquaintance of the employee; that the fight occurred at four o'clock in the morning when no customers were present in the dimly lighted grill which was not open for business; that three witnesses, who saw the fight from the street, testified that they looked on voluntarily to gratify their curiosity. There it was unanimously held that the acts of defendants did not tend to such a disturbance of the tranquillity of the People as to constitute disorderly conduct in violation of the statute. Penal Law, § 722, subd. 2. The facts in the case at bar present a weaker case of alleged disorderly conduct than People v. Perry, supra. Since the decision in People v. Perry, supra, it has been settled that acts charged as disorderly conduct must be public in character, and such as actually do tend to disturb the public peace and quiet. If defendant had uttered the words charged to her in the privacy of the office of compl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...conduct must be public in character, and such as actually do tend to disturb the public peace and quiet.' People v. Monnier, 280 N.Y. 77, at pages 78 and 79, 19 N.E.2d 789, 790. 'It is not essential that there be an actual breach of the peace. People v. Nesin, 179 App.Div. 869, 167 N.Y.S. 4......
-
City of Chicago v. Terminiello
...682, 34 A.L.R. 570. The acts must be public in character and such as actually tend to disturb the public peace and quiet. People v. Monnier, 280 N.Y. 77, 19 N.E.2d 789;People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 364, 365, 193 N.E. 175;People v. Reid, Co. Ct., 40 N.Y.S.2d 793;People v. McWilliams, Mag. C......
-
City of Chicago v. Terminiello
...a breach of the peace must be committed in a public place, defendant places heavy reliance on five New York decisions: People v. Monnier, 280 N.Y. 77, 19 N.E.2d 789 (foul epithets spoken on telephone); People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 193 N.E. 175 (fight among three men in a closed restaurant......
-
City of Bismarck v. Travis, 344
...as disorderly conduct must be public in character, and such as actually do tend to disturb the public peace and quiet. People v. Monnier, 280 N.Y. 77, 19 N.E.2d 789. The Court of Appeals of New York, in People v. Chesnick, 302 N.Y. 58, 96 N.E.2d 87, discussed the phrase 'breach of the peace......