People v. Sternberg
| Decision Date | 24 December 1931 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MILTON STERNBERG, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Special Sessions |
Appeal by defendant from judgment convicting him of disorderly conduct tending to a breach of the peace.
Judgment reversed on the law and facts, fine ordered repaid, and a new trial ordered.
The judgment, convicting defendant of disorderly conduct tending to a breach of the peace, must be reversed, the fine repaid and a new trial ordered, where the language used by defendant to a New York city police officer did not cause a crowd to collect and was not sufficient to warrant a finding of disorderly conduct.
Daniel Jacobson, for the appellant.
Thomas C. T. Crain, District Attorney [Joshua Egelson of counsel] for the People.
This is an appeal from a conviction of disorderly conduct tending to a breach of the peace. The complaint charges the appellant with using loud language and causing a crowd to collect on Thirty-sixth street between Broadway and Seventh avenue in New York county at two-fifty-five P. M. on August 27, 1931.
The officer that made the arrest is the only witness for the People. He says that at the time and on the day mentioned he was regulating traffic, when a car pulled up at the side of the street. The appellant was seated with the chauffeur of the car, and the officer, addressing the chauffeur, said 'Parking limit is one hour.' That the appellant who had alighted from the car said to the officer, 'Hey, we just came from Headquarters.' The officer said, 'I am not talking to you in the first place, and if you don't keep quiet why I will lock you up.' Then the officer said to the chauffeur, The officer then states that the appellant kept on hollering. On being asked what the appellant said, the officer stated that he said, 'We did not park there this morning.' The officer then said to the appellant, 'All right if you want to keep on talking and hollering like that I will lock you up for disorderly conduct.' The officer then took the appellant to the station house, and the lieutenant ordered the officer to give him a summons for disorderly conduct. The officer also testified that this altercation had caused a crowd to collect.
On this testimony the magistrate bases his conviction. All that the appellant said according to this testimony was, 'Hey we just came from Headquarters,' and, 'We didn't park here this morning.' It is obvious that the language alone used by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. La Sister
...defendant caused a crowd to collect, deserved and should have received 'careful investigation by the magistrate.' People v. Sternberg, 142 Misc. 602, 254 N.Y.S. 488, 489. See also People v. Chesnick, 302 N.Y. 58, 96 N.E.2d 87 and People v. Cuvelier, Co.Ct., 167 N.Y.S.2d 871. In addition, th......
-
People v. Cuvelier
...a crowd collected, when such remarks are made in reply to an unwarranted accusation or request by a Police Officer. People v. Sternberg, 142 Misc. 602, 254 N.Y.S. 488; People v. Tinston, 6 Misc.2d 485, 163 N.Y.S.2d It has also been held that one can be guilty of disorderly conduct for actio......