PEOPLE v. KHRAMSTOV (2018)

Judgment of conviction (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), rendered October 23, 2014, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the information “a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” (People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 360, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233 [2000]), we find “as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading” (People v. Davis, 13 N.Y.3d 17, 31, 884 N.Y.S.2d 665, 912 N.E.2d 1044 [2009] ) that it was legally sufficient to charge defendant with disruption or disturbance of a religious service (see Penal Law § 240.21). The instrument recited that defendant “enter[ed] the Church of the Sacred Heart,” “during [a] church service,” which was attended by “at least forty people” and “disrupted the service” by “walk[ing] up to the altar, screaming loudly, and flailing his arms.” These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant made an “unreasonable noise or disturbance while at a lawfully assembled religious service ․ with intent to cause annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof” (Penal Law § 240.21;  see People v. Bakolas, 59 N.Y.2d 51, 54, 462 N.Y.S.2d 844, 449 N.E.2d 738 [1983];  People v. McDaniel, 161 Misc.2d 295, 303, 614 N.Y.S.2d 686 [Crim. Ct., N.Y. County 1994], aff'd as modified 172 Misc.2d 854, 661 N.Y.S.2d 904 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 895, 662 N.Y.S.2d 438, 685 N.E.2d 219 [1997] ). Contrary to defendant's present claim, there is no requirement that there be allegations that a priest or other minister was preaching at the altar, that rituals were being performed or that parishioners were caused to leave (see William C. Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 240.21;  People v. King, 148 Misc.2d 859, 861, 561 N.Y.S.2d 395 [Crim. Ct., N.Y. County 1990]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.