Case ID: misc_142/html/0092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McInerney, J. Kernochan, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angelo Dominico and Another, Appellants.
    Court of Special Sessions, City of New York, Appellate Part, Second Judicial Department,
    November 24, 1931.
    
      Jacob A. Freedman [Irving C. Maltz of counsel], for the appellants.
    
      William F. X. Geoghan, District Attorney [George Palmer of counsel], for the respondent.
   McInerney, J.

The defendants were charged with and convicted of disorderly conduct tending to a breach of the peace in that they did annoy and interfere with deponent and deponent’s business, the defendants following deponent from customer to customer, and defendants recording addresses of deponent’s customers in book; in violation of section 722, subdivision 2 of the Penal Law.”

It is questionable if the complainant understood what was meant when he was asked if the defendants bad annoyed him and when he responded that they did not but that “ he was scared.” It seems to ine that the actions of the defendants in following the complainant in the manner described did interfere with and was offensive to the complainant and tended to cause a breach of the peace and I believe the magistrate was justified in finding the defendants guilty.

Herbert, J., concurs.

Kernochan, J.

(dissenting). The evidence establishes that the complainant, a retail ice dealer, was followed on his rounds serving customers by the appellants, servants of a wholesale ice company from which the complainant had previously purchased his supplies of ice. The complainant was convinced that appellants were intent upon taking his customers away from him, in fact there is testimony that if the complainant would again patronize the ice company the actions of the appellants would cease. Section 722, subdivision 2 of the Penal Law, is upon its face very broad, so broad in fact that appellate courts must limit its application. In this case the appellants did nothing disorderly and I cannot avoid the conclusion from the facts that the arrest was made not because the complainant was annoyed or " scared ” but because he wanted to stop what he considered to be unjust competition.

I vote to reverse on the law and facts, complaint dismissed.