People v Morisseau
Annotate this CaseDecided on August 25, 2006
Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County
The People of the State of New York,
against
Charlene Morisseau
2005KN067427
Matthew A. Sciarrino, J.
The defendant, Charlene Morisseau, is charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration in violation of New York Penal Law (PL) §195.05. Ms. Morisseau has moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds of the facial insufficiency of the accusatory instrument. In the alternative, Ms. Morisseau has submitted a motion to remove the case from Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, to Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, in the First Department. The People oppose these motions in all respects.
As a procedural matter, this court first holds that it must determine the removal prong of the motion first, because if there are grounds for removal, then this court should not consider the merits of the defendant's motion.
The defendant's motion for removal is based simply on the fact that the alleged incidents occurred in the offices of the Appellate Division Second Department. There are no allegations made as to why this court and this judge should be removed from the case. The Criminal Court of the City of New York, is not under the "administrative jurisdiction" of the Second Department. It is a city-wide court, headed by the Hon. Junita Bing Newton from 100 Centre Street in New York County. While the defendant would have a clear case for removal if this decision was appealed and that appeal worked its way to the Appellate Division, Second Department, the motion to remove the case is at this time without merit and is denied. The Criminal Court Judges of Kings County and in the rest of our city strive to fairly examine every case under the laws of our State and to not see justice in terms of black, white or any of the other colors of the rainbow that is New York.[FN1]
Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, this court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Facts[*2]
On October 18, 2005, at approximately 4:30 P.M., Charlene Morisseau entered the Clerk's Office of the Appellate Division Second Department with the intention of retrieving a copy of a file. She had already paid the $394.50 the fee that was required for the copying. The file concerned the Character and Fitness Committee of the Second Department's finding that the defendant, who is a Harvard Law School graduate who passed the New York State Bar Exam was unfit to practice law.[FN2] The following facts are in dispute. The defendant claims that while in a discussion with the court's clerk, Mr. Pelzer, stated that the defendant was to pick up the file the day before. Ms. Morisseau claims that when she "peacefully" questioned the clerk's refusal to hand over the documents, she was placed under arrest by court personnel and charged with obstructing governmental administration and disorderly conduct. It should be noted that the defendant had apparently been trying to retrieve her file again after numerous visits to the office. It must also be noted that the defendant was a plaintiff in a civil action in federal court against the Second Department of the Appellate Division..
In opposition, the prosecution claims that while in a discussion between the clerk and the defendant, the court employee attempted to explain the necessary procedures to the defendant. Ms. Morisseau proceeded to become agitated and yelled in a loud voice that she wanted her "fucking file." The Chief Clerk claims that Ms. Morisseau began to scream highly offensive, derogatory names, specifically "cracker" and "white nigger." The clerk claims that the actions of Ms. Morisseau caused the court office to come to a standstill. The clerk notes that when the defendant's described behavior did not cease, several court officers responded, asking the defendant to calm down. When the defendant repeatedly refused to leave without her file, she was placed under arrest. The defendant was ultimately charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (§195.05) and two counts of Disorderly Conduct (PL §240.20[2]) & [3]).
The defendant was arraigned on October 18, 2005, in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County. During her arraignment, Judge Richard Allman dismissed the two counts of disorderly conduct for facial insufficiency.
Discussion
(PL) 195.05 reads:
A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function, or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act.
Under PL §195.05, a public servant must be engaged in a "specific action at the time of the physical interference, and not just on duty" (People v. Joseph, 156 Misc 2d 192, 194 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1992]). In Joseph, the court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of section 195.05, "unless it is established that the police were engaged in authorized conduct" (id at 193). The reason for this is "the mens rea of this crime is an intent to frustrate a public servant in the performance of a specific function" (Joseph, 156 Misc 2d at 193). The evidence is facially [*3]insufficient to determine whether the public servant, Mr. Pelzer, was in the midst of an official government function or simply in a disagreement with Ms Morisseau over a personal issue, specifically the action filed in federal court by Ms. Moriseau, with Mr. Pelzer as a named respondent.
In addition, PL §195.05 notes that a defendant can obstruct governmental administration in three ways: intimidation, physical force or interference, or any independently unlawful act.The affidavit notes that Ms. Morisseau never moved her body, did not gesture with her hands, did not lean across the counter, and did not move toward the clerk or his officers. The only discrepancy in the facts seems to stem from whether Ms. Morrisseau was shouting racial epithets and the level of noise.
Although the assistant district attorney argues that it was Ms. Morisseau's clear intention was to interfere with an authorized function of the clerk's office, the facts alleged are facially insufficient to make this determination as a matter of law. In People v. Vargas, the named defendant was charged with obstructing governmental administration for throwing a marijuana cigarette into a sewer in front of a police officer (People v. Vargas, 179 Misc 2d 236 [Crim Ct. Kings Co., 1998]). Although the defendant did eliminate crucial evidence toward the case, Vargas did not throw away the cigarette in response to an official police order. The court found the facts to be insufficient to determine whether Vargas was acting with intent or simply innocuously. Similarly, the nature of the conduct and interaction between Mr. Pelzer and Ms. Morisseau remain far too ambiguous to make out the crime alleged.
This court does not condone inappropriate conduct by citizens who come to our courts. People who need assistance from the courts must treat the employees of the court with respect. The clerks in the court system are the backbone of the court system. However, the court and its employees must also treat the people who come before it with respect. While it is easy to understand "short fuses" in an overworked and overburdened court system, we must all strive to maintain our temperament, which is no easy feat.
As a graduate of Harvard Law School, on the cusp of what this court hopes is a magnificent career, Ms. Morisseau obviously has many potential talents. It remains to be seen how she intends to use them. This court can only hope that Ms. Morisseau will use her unbridled passion for good works and worthy causes and not remain bogged down in the quagmire of seeing every injustice as racially motivated.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of PL §195.05 is hereby granted.
This opinion shall constitute the Decision and Order of the court.
Dated: August 25, 2006
_________________________ [*4]
Hon. Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr.
Judge of the Criminal Court
Footnotes
Footnote 1: In her motion to dismiss the case, Ms. Morisseau mentions components of race numerous times (See Notice of Motion to Dismiss). Every "character" in the facts of her motion is identified not only by position, but by race. Despite what Ms. Morisseau may believe, this case does not stand on a question of race, but on the law.
Footnote 2: She has since been admitted to the bar of the state of New York, and is representing herself in this action.
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.
