People v Bezjak (Jennifer)

[*1] People v Bezjak (Jennifer) 2010 NY Slip Op 50040(U) [26 Misc 3d 130(A)] Decided on January 14, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 14, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Heitler, J.
570349/06

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, 570350/06 570351/06 570352/06 570353/06

against

Jennifer Bezjak, Kimberly Perfetto, 570354/06 Jamison Rollins, Kyle Jones, 570355/06 Brendan Oram, Teresa Carta, 570356/06 Joel Fitzpatrick, and Tyler Hartz, Defendants-Appellants.

Defendants appeal from judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Harris, J.), rendered February 14, 2006, after a nonjury trial, convicting them of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgments of conviction (Gerald Harris, J.), rendered February 14, 2006, affirmed.

In the early evening of January 28, 2005, a "Critical Mass" bicycle ride (see Five Borough Bicycle Club v City of New York, 483 F Supp 2d 351 [SD NY 2007]; Bray v City of New York, 346 F Supp 2d 480 [SD NY 2004]) commenced from Union Square. The participants cycled out of Union Square Park en mass and on to public streets adjacent to the park. Each of the defendants was arrested in the vicinity of Union Square and charged with, among other offenses, disorderly conduct. Immediately prior to their respective arrests, defendants were riding their bicycles on public streets with scores of other cyclists. Following a nonjury trial, each defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct under subdivision five of Penal Law § 240.20 (obstruction of vehicular or pedestrian traffic) (11 Misc 3d 424 [2006]).

We reject defendants' constitutional challenges to Penal Law § 240.20(5) (People v Beck, ___ Misc 3d ___ [January 4, 2010]; see People v Tichenor, 89 NY2d 769 [1997]; see also Cameron v Johnson, 390 US 611, 617 [1968]; Cox v State of Louisiana, 379 US 536, 553-556 [1965]; Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 US 296, 308 [1940]). Moreover, we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally sufficient to establish defendants' guilt of disorderly conduct (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see id. at 348-349; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 14, 2010