People v Smith (Michael)

[*1] People v Smith (Michael) 2005 NY Slip Op 52196(U) [10 Misc 3d 138(A)] Decided on December 29, 2005 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 29, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and McCABE, JJ
2004-1242 S CR.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

MICHAEL J. SMITH, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (John J. Toomey, J.), rendered July 20, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of disorderly conduct.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Following a bench trial, defendant was found guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of section 240.20 (6) of the Penal Law. The People offered evidence at trial to the effect that there was a crowd gathered outside of a catering hall when the police arrived. There were fights breaking out and the crowd was noisy and boisterous. The officers tried to disperse the crowd and move the people inside. As to defendant, the People offered testimony to the effect that he was swearing and inciting others while standing by the front door videotaping the incident. Defendant was asked at least twice to go inside the premises. Defendant refused and, in a loud voice, directed his profanity toward the officers. As a result, defendant was arrested. Viewing said evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [6]) beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). The other issues raised on this appeal were considered and found to be without merit. [*2]
Decision Date: December 29, 2005