People v. Robinson, 2009–940QCR.

• Decision Date: 13 September 2012
• Docket Number: No. 2009–940QCR.,2009–940QCR.
• Citation: 960 N.Y.S.2d 52,36 Misc.3d 158,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51807
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ludlow ROBINSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

36 Misc.3d 158

960 N.Y.S.2d 52

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51807

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Ludlow ROBINSON, Appellant.

No. 2009–940QCR.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

2nd, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts.

Sept. 13, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREPresent: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cesar Quinones, J.H.O.), rendered March 12, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of violating New York City Administrative Code § 15–216(a).

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

In December 2008, defendant was charged with disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20[7] ). The accusatory instrument alleged, among other things, that the complainant police officer had responded to a verbal dispute between defendant and a bus driver, during which defendant had refused to move from his standing position behind the driver “thereby creating a hazardous condition by blocking the driver's view.” Following a nonjury trial, at which defendant represented himself, the judicial hearing officer stated “Forget it. Enough. I'll reduce it to a violation of the administrative code. $50.” It is not disputed that defendant was ultimately convicted of violating New York City Administrative Code § 15–216(a).

Administrative Code § 15–216(a) pertains to fines and penalties for the violation of fire prevention and control codes. Since the foregoing section of the administrative code is not a lesser included offense of disorderly conduct, a violation ( see CPL 220 .20; Penal Law § 240.20), [Slip Op. 2]the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.