People v. Paradiso

CourtNew York Court of Special Sessions
Writing for the CourtROBERT L. FLACK
Citation58 Misc.2d 370,295 N.Y.S.2d 561
Decision Date06 December 1968
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Jim PARADISO, Defendant.

Page 561

295 N.Y.S.2d 561
58 Misc.2d 370
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Jim PARADISO, Defendant.
Court of Special Sessions of Village of Watkins Glen,
Schuyler County.
Dec. 6, 1968.

Page 562

[58 Misc.2d 371] William N. Ellison, Dist. Atty., for the People.

William G. Ruger, Watkins Glen, for defendant.

ROBERT L. FLACK, Judge.

An information was filed with this Court by Sabatino DeDominics charging the defendant with violation of Section 240.25 of the Penal Law, paragraphs two and three, in that the defendant on the 18th day of September, 1968, at the residence of the complainant did wrongfully, unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly use abusive and obscene language to the defendant which language was stated in detail in the Information. Complainant further alleged in the Information that 'there were small children and my tenant who lives in a trailer behind my house in the area where they could hear what was being said by the defendant.' The complainant did further allege 'By defendant course of conduct and repeatedly commits acts did alarm and seriously annoy me.'

The defendant through his attorney has made a motion to dismiss the Information on the following grounds:

1. The alleged harassment perpetrated by the defendant upon the complainant as set forth in the Information was not stated therein to be done with intent to harass, annoy or alarm the complainant as is required in the statute to make such conduct prosecutable under said statute and that the use of the terms wrongfully, unlawfully and wilfully are improper in that they are not terms used in Section 15.05 of the Penal Law wherein culpable mental states are defined for purposes of the Penal Law and the term knowingly is not synonymous with the term intentionally and that intention is a necessary element of proof in a prosecution for harassment.

2. That paragraph two of Section 240.25 makes the use of obscene language or an obscene gesture in a public place harassment if done with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person and that the complainant's residence was not a public place.

[58 Misc.2d 372] 3. That paragraph three of Section 240.25 makes the following of a person in or about a public place with intent to harass, annoy or alarm

Page 563

said person, harassment. That the Information does not allege that the defendant followed the complainant and in any event complainant's residence was not a public place.

As to the first objection, the Court would permit amendment of the Information to conform it to the requirements of the statute cf. People v. Easton, 307 N.Y. 336, 339, 121 N.E.2d 357, 358 wherein the Court said, 'Accordingly, as has elsewhere been held, a court has the power to amend an information even though the amendment may affect a matter of substance.' The remaining...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Com. v. Duncan
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 29, 1976
    ...courts have interpreted their counterpart of subsection three to exclude situations of offensive language only. 2 In People v. Paradiso, 58 Misc.2d 370, 295 N.Y.S.2d 561 (1968), for example, the defendant allegedly used abusive and obscene language at the home of the complainant. [239 Pa.Su......
  • People v. Deignan
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • November 29, 1982
    ...the incident of harassment in the two People v. Mulcahey cases occurred in a "public place". The case of People v. Paradiso, 58 Misc.2d 370, 373, 374, 295 N.Y.S.2d 370 (Court of Special Sessions of the Village of Watkins Glen 1968) provided an extensive discussion of the question ......
  • People v. Santos, No. 2014NY080437.
    • United States
    • New York Criminal Court
    • February 10, 2015
    ...and the marijuana were found. This “room[ ] or apartment [ ] designed for actual residence” is not a “public place.” People v. Paradiso, 58 Misc.2d 370, 295 N.Y.S.2d 561 (Spec. Sess. Village of Watkins Glen 1968) (“[A] private residence does not fall within the definition of a public place ......
  • People v. Cecere
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • May 23, 1972
    ...are a public place, then certainly the sidewalks and fronts of residences would be a public place. Defendant cites People v. Paradiso, 58 Misc.2d 370, 295 N.Y.S.2d 561; this case is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the disturbance occurred in defendant's private residence and was no......
4 cases
  • Com. v. Duncan
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 29, 1976
    ...courts have interpreted their counterpart of subsection three to exclude situations of offensive language only. 2 In People v. Paradiso, 58 Misc.2d 370, 295 N.Y.S.2d 561 (1968), for example, the defendant allegedly used abusive and obscene language at the home of the complainant. [239 Pa.Su......
  • People v. Deignan
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • November 29, 1982
    ...the incident of harassment in the two People v. Mulcahey cases occurred in a "public place". The case of People v. Paradiso, 58 Misc.2d 370, 373, 374, 295 N.Y.S.2d 370 (Court of Special Sessions of the Village of Watkins Glen 1968) provided an extensive discussion of the question ......
  • People v. Santos, No. 2014NY080437.
    • United States
    • New York Criminal Court
    • February 10, 2015
    ...and the marijuana were found. This “room[ ] or apartment [ ] designed for actual residence” is not a “public place.” People v. Paradiso, 58 Misc.2d 370, 295 N.Y.S.2d 561 (Spec. Sess. Village of Watkins Glen 1968) (“[A] private residence does not fall within the definition of a public place ......
  • People v. Cecere
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • May 23, 1972
    ...are a public place, then certainly the sidewalks and fronts of residences would be a public place. Defendant cites People v. Paradiso, 58 Misc.2d 370, 295 N.Y.S.2d 561; this case is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the disturbance occurred in defendant's private residence and was no......

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