PEOPLE v. BIRCH (2021)

Judgment of conviction (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.), rendered February 3, 2015, affirmed.

The information charging disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20) was not jurisdictionally defective. Nonhearsay allegations established every element of the offense and defendant's commission thereof (see CPL 100.40[1][c]; People v Middleton, 35 NY3d 952, 954 [2020]). Defendant's intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly create a risk thereof (see People v Weaver, 16 NY3d 123, 128 [2011]) could be readily inferred from allegations that he refused to comply with the routine magnetometer search procedure at the Bronx County Criminal Court building on a specified weekday afternoon during the hours of court; used obscene and abusive language, i.e., “Why you going through my shit. This is bullshit. Fuck this shit;” and “refused to comply with several lawful orders to refrain from the disruptive conduct, to comply with the voluntary search or vacate the area” (see People v Lee, 55 Misc 3d 138[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50521[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1092 [2017]; see also Matter of Monique Elizabeth J. v Orlandro D., 145 AD3d 557 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 901 [2017]; Norasteh v State of New York, 44 AD3d 576 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 709 [2008]; People v Clarke, 34 Misc 3d 159[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50438[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]).

Per Curiam.

All concur.