Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People of the State of New York, Ind. C/ Respondent, v. Rubin Moye, Defendant–Appellant.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward M. Davidowitz, J.), rendered August 31, 2009, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of disorderly conduct, and sentencing him to time served, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct under a theory that he recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by obstructing traffic (see Penal Law § 240.20[5] ). The People's proof demonstrated that even after an officer identified himself, defendant continued running from an unmarked police vehicle, zigzagging between the sidewalk and the street, and interfering with traffic.
Defendant's defense was that he was appropriately and justifiably running into and out of the street in order to escape from a suspicious van at night in a high-crime area and that he was taking evasive actions to avoid being hit by the pursuing van, which followed him onto the sidewalk.
Defendant's argument that the People's evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction is unpreserved. As an alternative holding, assuming that the argument is preserved, we find that the conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. We further conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348–349 [2007] ). Viewing the evidence as a whole in the exercise of our factual review powers, we find that the People presented sufficient evidence to refute defendant's defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 6288 2791 7 09
Decided: December 13, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)