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, Respondent, v. Joseph WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
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]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Per Curiam.
All concur
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: 570070 /18
Decided: April 19, 2022
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, 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)