| People v Wilson (Joseph) |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 50274(U) [74 Misc 3d 134(A)] |
| Decided on April 19, 2022 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Frances Y. Wang, J.), rendered January 3, 2018, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Frances Y. Wang, J.), rendered January 3, 2018, affirmed.
The verdict convicting defendant of disorderly conduct under a theory that he was congregating with other persons in a public place and refusing to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse (see Penal Law § 240.20[6]), was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. The credited police testimony established that a police officer responded to a radio call of an officer needing assistance at the corner of Boston Post Road and East 168th Street; that the officer encountered a crowd of approximately one hundred people, with 15-20 officers "trying to find the officers that were screaming for help"; that the officer began directing the crowd "to clear the intersection because it was a police scene," telling the crowd that they can "go down the block"; and that defendant repeatedly refused to comply with the orders to disperse. Contrary to defendant's contentions, the People's proof demonstrated that he "congregate[d] with other[s]" on the street (Penal Law § 240.20[6]) to watch the underlying police activity. Furthermore, his intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessness in creating such a risk, could be inferred from his refusal to comply with the police order to disperse(see People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128 [2011]; People v Theronier, 195 AD3d 558 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1030 [2021]; People v Seck, 126 AD3d 574 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1171 [2015]).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the circumstances present here do not indicate any arbitrariness on the part of the police officer in ordering the crowd to disperse, charged as he was with maintaining public order (see People v Todaro, 26 NY2d 325, 328-329 [1970]).
All concur
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.