State v. Furino, No. A--942
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
| Citation | 85 N.J.Super. 345,204 A.2d 718 |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1964 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Fred FURINO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. A--942 |
Page 345
v.
Fred FURINO, Defendant-Appellant.
Appellate Division.
Decided Nov. 12, 1964.
Page 346
Irving I. Vogelman, Jersey City, for appellant (Raymond A. Brown, Jersey City, attorney).
Gregory J. Castano, Asst. Pros., for respondent (James A. Tumulty, Jr., Pros., attorney).
Before Judges GOLDMANN, SULLIVAN and LABRECQUE.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
GOLDMANN, S.J.A.D.
Defendant appeals his County Court conviction after a trial De novo on the stenographic record taken in the North Bergen Municipal Court.
Detective Nacca of the North Bergen Police Department brought a three-count complaint against defendant, the first count charging that he did 'obstruct and interfere' with Nacca, Detectives Montemurro and Stewart, and Sergeant Sybel, in violation of N.J.S. 2A:170--29(2)(b), N.J.S.A., while the police officers were lawfully on the premises of the Columbia Park Cabana Club. The second count charged defendant, while on the premises (a place to which the public was invited), with uttering certain loud, offensive, profane and indecent language (which need not be detailed here), in violation of N.J.S. 2A:170--29(1), N.J.S.A. The third count charged that he addressed[204 A.2d 719] and made audible and offensive remarks to and concerning Nacca and Montemurro, namely, the indecent
Page 347
language which we have not reproduced, in violation of N.J.S. 2A:170--29(2)(a), N.J.S.A. The municipal magistrate found defendant guilty of all three charges and imposed county jail sentences of 90, 60 and 60 days, respectively, the sentences on the second and third counts to run concurrently. The County Court on appeal found defendant guilty on count 1, not guilty on the other two counts, and imposed a 60-day county jail sentence.Pursuant to the authority contained in N.J.S.A. 33:1--35 and the consent embodied in the alcoholic beverage license application for the premises, the four named police officers entered the Columbia Park Cabana Club premises on July 11, 1962, at about 6:45 P.M. to make a routine inspection. While they were in the rear room one Konigsberg walked in and objected to their presence. When informed that the officers were making a routine inspection, he asked for their warrant and was told they did not need one because they were acting under the alcoholic beverage application. Konigsberg refused to get out of their way and kept interfering. When Sybel told him to step out of the way or he would be placed under arrest, he became abusive, shouting obscenities. Sybel then placed him under arrest. A struggle ensued, and it was then that Furino, who had come into the room with Konigsberg, tried to interfere with the arrest. Detectives Nacca and Montemurro told him to stand back and not interfere. He shouted that he was the owner and the principal stockholder, and let loose with foul language. He punched both Nacca and Montemurro in the chest. He was then placed under arrest, handcuffed and taken out of the premises.
Furino, who described himself as executive director of the club, denied that he obstructed and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tischio
...man on the street. Refined definition is unnecessary." State v. Lashinsky, 81 N.J. 1, 9, 404 A.2d 1121 (1979) (quoting State v. Furino, 85 N.J.Super. 345, 348, 204 A.2d 718 The majority resists a reading of the statute that zeroes in on the time of operation of the vehicle not because there......
-
State v. Lashinsky
...outer limits of the statutory prohibition is restricted to such physical interference and nothing more. The court in State v. Furino, 85 N.J.Super. 345, 348, 204 A.2d 718 (App.Div.1964), holding that the statute would prohibit conduct which impedes the task of a police officer, The three ve......
-
State v. Laws, No. A--72
...affirmed 39 N.J. 516, 189 A.2d 218 (1963); State v. Gibbs, 79 N.J.Super. 315, 324--326, 191 A.2d 495 (App.Div.1963); State v. Furino, 85 N.J.Super. 345, 349, 204 A.2d 718 (App.Div.1964); State v. Hall, 87 N.J.Super. 480, 484--485, 210 A.2d 74 (App.Div.1965); State v. Ford, 92 N.J.Super. 356......
-
Camarco v. City of Orange
...denied, 385 Page 467 U.S. 838, 87 S.Ct. 85, 17 L.Ed.2d 71 (1966); In re B.N., Supra, 99 N.J.Super. 30, 238 A.2d 486; State v. Furino, 85 N.J.Super. 345, 204 A.2d 718 The City of Orange did not question the narrowing construction of its ordinance; on the contrary it actually advanced such co......
-
State v. Tischio
...the street. Refined definition is unnecessary." State v. Lashinsky, 81 N.J. 1, 9, 404 A.2d 1121 (1979) (quoting State v. Furino, 85 N.J.Super. 345, 348, 204 A.2d 718 The majority resists a reading of the statute that zeroes in on the time of operation of the vehicle not because there i......
-
State v. Lashinsky
...outer limits of the statutory prohibition is restricted to such physical interference and nothing more. The court in State v. Furino, 85 N.J.Super. 345, 348, 204 A.2d 718 (App.Div.1964), holding that the statute would prohibit conduct which impedes the task of a police officer, The three ve......
-
State v. Laws, No. A--72
...affirmed 39 N.J. 516, 189 A.2d 218 (1963); State v. Gibbs, 79 N.J.Super. 315, 324--326, 191 A.2d 495 (App.Div.1963); State v. Furino, 85 N.J.Super. 345, 349, 204 A.2d 718 (App.Div.1964); State v. Hall, 87 N.J.Super. 480, 484--485, 210 A.2d 74 (App.Div.1965); State v. Ford, 92 N.J.Super. 356......
-
Camarco v. City of Orange
...denied, 385 Page 467 U.S. 838, 87 S.Ct. 85, 17 L.Ed.2d 71 (1966); In re B.N., Supra, 99 N.J.Super. 30, 238 A.2d 486; State v. Furino, 85 N.J.Super. 345, 204 A.2d 718 The City of Orange did not question the narrowing construction of its ordinance; on the contrary it actually advanced such co......