People v. Perry

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtLOUGHRAN
Citation193 N.E. 175,265 N.Y. 362
PartiesPEOPLE v. PERRY et al.
Decision Date20 November 1934

265 N.Y. 362
193 N.E. 175

PEOPLE
v.
PERRY et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 20, 1934.


James Perry and Harry Curtis, impleaded with another, were convicted of disorderly conduct, and from judgments of the County Court of Otsego county, which modified and affirmed as modified judgments of conviction by the City Court of the city of Oneonta, named defendants appeal.

Reversed.

[193 N.E. 176]


[265 N.Y. 362]Appeal from Otsego County Court.

Everett B. Holmes and George L. Bockes, both of Oneonta, for appellants.

Donald H. Grant, District Attorney, of Oneonta, for respondent.


LOUGHRAN, Judge.

The three defendants were tried in the City Court of Oneonta upon an information charging them with disorderly conduct in violation of [265 N.Y. 363]Penal Law, § 722, subd. 2, ‘in that the accused did at the Empire Grill located on Broad Street within said City of Oneonta * * * strike, beat and assault one another with their hands and feet and did * * * act in such a manner by so fighting and assaulting each other, as to annoy and be offensive to others.’

The ‘Empire Grill’ is a restaurant conducted by the defendant Perry on Broad street in Oneonta. The defendant Curtis was employed there. He and the defendant Lee were friends living in the same household. The people's proof is that at 4 o'clock in the morning on March 18, 1934, in Perry's establishment, he and Curtis struck Lee with their fists; that Lee fell twice to the floor and was bruised and bleeding when the police arrived shortly thereafter. This evidence was given by three persons who attempted to enter the restaurant to get beer. The door was locked and they were waved away with the information that the place was closed. No inappropriate language was heard. The restaurant was not fully lighted. One employed as a cook was the only other person there. No one was in the adjacent street except the three witnesses for the people.

The undisputed testimony of the three defendants persuaded the trier of the fact that Lee was the aggressor in the transaction. It is conceded that the police were summoned by Perry.

All the defendants were found guilty-Lee as an invader whose admitted intoxication did not excuse him; the others because their resistance to his intrusion was adjudged to have been unsuitable in kind and excessive in degree. Each defendant was sentenced to 100 days' imprisonment and directed to pay a fine of $100. Upon appeal to the County Court of Otsego county, the judgment against the defendant Lee was reversed. The judgment against the defendant Perry and that against the defendant Curtis were modified by reduction...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 practice notes
  • People v. Turner
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • November 12, 1965
    ...to produce violence, or which, by causing consternation and alarm, disturbs the peace and quiet of the community.' See People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 364, 193 N.E. 175, 176; People v. Pieri, 269 N.Y. 315, 322, 199 N.E. 495, 497; Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308, 60 S.Ct. ......
  • People v. Barrow
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • April 23, 1964
    ...the peace and quiet of the community' (People v. Most, 171 N.Y. 423, 429, 64 N.E. 175, 177, 58 L.R.A. 509, quoted in People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 364, 193 N.E. 175, 5 Representative of the minority view to the contrary are State v . Blevins, 134 Ala. 213, 32 So. 637, 638 and State v. Purd......
  • People v. Penn
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • October 15, 1964
    ...place and circumstances of the acts, would, if not stopped, actually engender a breach of the peace are within its ambit (People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 364, 193 N.E. 175; Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894). Otherwise, they are not to be so held (People ......
  • Hickman v. State Of Md., No. 882
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 3, 2010
    ...is, therefore, characterized as a public disturbance, a crime against the public and its aim is to protect the peace. People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 193 N.E. 175, 177 (1934). By contrast, an assault can be a crime against an individual and, in this respect, differs significantly from the no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
60 cases
  • People v. Turner
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • November 12, 1965
    ...to produce violence, or which, by causing consternation and alarm, disturbs the peace and quiet of the community.' See People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 364, 193 N.E. 175, 176; People v. Pieri, 269 N.Y. 315, 322, 199 N.E. 495, 497; Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308, 60 S.Ct. ......
  • People v. Barrow
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • April 23, 1964
    ...the peace and quiet of the community' (People v. Most, 171 N.Y. 423, 429, 64 N.E. 175, 177, 58 L.R.A. 509, quoted in People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 364, 193 N.E. 175, 5 Representative of the minority view to the contrary are State v . Blevins, 134 Ala. 213, 32 So. 637, 638 and State v. Purd......
  • People v. Penn
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • October 15, 1964
    ...place and circumstances of the acts, would, if not stopped, actually engender a breach of the peace are within its ambit (People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 364, 193 N.E. 175; Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894). Otherwise, they are not to be so held (People ......
  • Hickman v. State Of Md., No. 882
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 3, 2010
    ...is, therefore, characterized as a public disturbance, a crime against the public and its aim is to protect the peace. People v. Perry, 265 N.Y. 362, 193 N.E. 175, 177 (1934). By contrast, an assault can be a crime against an individual and, in this respect, differs significantly from the no......
  • 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