People v. Wilson, 570407/16

• Decision Date: 25 October 2016
• Docket Number: 570407/16
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Joseph Wilson, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

2016 NY Slip Op 51553(U)

The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Joseph Wilson, Defendant-Respondent.

570407/16

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Decided on October 25, 2016

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Ling-Cohan, JJ.

The People, as limited by their brief, appeal from so much of an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Armando Montano, J.), dated November 10, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the counts of the superseding information charging defendant with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

Per Curiam.

Order (Armando Montano, J.), dated November 10, 2015, insofar as appealed from, reversed, on the law, the branches of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the charges of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct are denied, the superseding information is reinstated with respect to these charges, and the matter remitted to Criminal Court for further proceedings.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the superseding information "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), that it established reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant was guilty of disorderly conduct. The "refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse" element of the offense (Penal Law § 240.20[6]) was satisfied by sworn allegations that deponent police officer, while responding to a call for assistance, observed defendant standing with approximately forty other individuals in the vicinity where other officers were effectuating an arrest of a separately apprehended individual; that the officer asked defendant "to move away from that area numerous times and defendant refused to move"; and that defendant cursed at and "lunged" towards the officer. No additional evidentiary details were required for the People's pleading to provide "adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy" (People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 25, 2016