PEOPLE v. PARHAM (2019)

Judgment of conviction (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered March 13, 2013, reversed, on the law and the facts, and accusatory instrument is dismissed.

The verdict convicting the defendant of disorderly conduct pursuant to Penal Law § 240.20(5) was not based on legally sufficient evidence and was, in any event, against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). Absent from the record is the essential quantum of proof that defendant obstructed vehicular traffic when, after police asked him to move his vehicle away from a fire hydrant, he backed up his vehicle on a fairly wide block to a suddenly available parking space. At most, the evidence showed that defendant's conduct caused a temporary inconvenience to one vehicle, which is insufficient to establish an obstruction of vehicular traffic (see generally People v. Pearl, 66 Misc 2d 502 [App Term, 1st Dept 1971]). Moreover, the evidence, even when viewed in a light most favorable to the People, failed to establish that defendant intended to cause or recklessly created the risk of “a potential or immediate public problem” (People v. Munafo, 50 NY2d 326, 331 [1980]).

Per Curiam.