People v Hickson (Willie)

[*1] People v Hickson (Willie) 2015 NY Slip Op 51865(U) Decided on December 22, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 22, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570079/13

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Willie Hickson, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.H.O.), rendered December 22, 2011, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of disorderly conduct and substituting a conviction of violating Public Health Law § 229 in its place, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (David Stadtmauer, J.H.O.), rendered December 22, 2011, affirmed.

Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20[5]) is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). The trial court, as factfinder, was warranted in concluding that defendant's conduct — standing in front of a police car in the middle of a busy street and refusing to comply with the police order to move — recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by obstructing vehicular traffic (see Penal Law § 240.20[5]; People v Moye, 90 AD3d 472, 473 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 926 [2012]).

We also find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging him with disorderly conduct pursuant to Penal Law § 240.20[5]). Contrary to defendant's present contention, his requisite intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessness in creating such a risk, is fairly inferable from police allegations that defendant "did stand in front of police car while police car was moving and defendant refused to move."

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 22, 2015