People v Dennis (Susan)

[*1] People v Dennis (Susan) 2006 NY Slip Op 51669(U) [13 Misc 3d 127(A)] Decided on August 18, 2006 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 18, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and TANENBAUM, JJ
2005-532 D CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Susan E. Dennis, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Northeast, Dutchess County (Penny Singleton-Warren, J., at trial; John D. Crodelle, J., at sentence), rendered January 11, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and accusatory instrument dismissed.

Defendant Susan E. Dennis was convicted of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05). Since the arrest of defendant's husband, Richard C. Dennis, formed the basis of the official function allegedly interfered with in the instant charge of obstructing governmental administration, the arrest of Mr. Dennis must have been authorized in order to convict defendant at their joint trial (see Matter of Anthony B., 201 AD2d 725 [1994]; Matter of Verna C., 143 AD2d 94 [1988]; People v Vogel, 116 Misc 2d 332 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1982]). As this court has determined that the arrest of Mr. Dennis was unauthorized (People v Richard C. Dennis, No. 2005-531 D CR, decided herewith), the People in the case at bar failed to establish an essential element of the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see Penal Law § 195.05; People v Vogel, 116 Misc 2d 332, supra; see also People v Feliciano, 2 Misc 3d 1008[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50193[U]). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this court exercises its discretion to consider the issue regarding the deficiency of proof and reverses defendant's judgment of conviction (see CPL 470.15 [1], [4] [c]; see also People v Badine, 301 AD2d 178, 180 [2002]).

Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: August 18, 2006