People v O'Connor (Michael)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v O'Connor (Michael) 2012 NY Slip Op 51115(U) Decided on June 13, 2012 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 13, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2010-1745 P CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Michael O'Connor, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Carmel, Putnam County (Joseph J. Spofford, J.), rendered June 21, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of reckless endangerment in the second degree.


ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

We reject defendant's contention on appeal that the accusatory instrument charging him with reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20) was jurisdictionally defective. The accusatory instrument, along with the attached documentation, alleges that, while the complainant was operating a motor vehicle, defendant pulled her hair, which caused her to be pulled to the passenger side and
temporarily lose control of the vehicle, and attempted to snap her neck. In our opinion, these allegations adequately establish the elements of reckless endangerment in the second degree, as they set forth facts of an evidentiary nature (CPL 100.15 [3]) providing reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense charged (CPL 100.40 [1] [b]), and, if true, establish every element thereof (see CPL 100.40 [1] [c]; People v Galatro, 84 NY2d 160 [1994]; People v [*2]Macellaro, 131 AD2d 699 [1987]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 13, 2012

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.