Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Anthony Hogan, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-07-07
Citations: 181 Misc. 2d 748
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Anthony Hogan, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 181
Pages: 748–750

Head Matter:
[698 NYS2d 388]
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Anthony Hogan, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
July 7, 1998
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County (Nancy E. Talcott and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for appellant. Legal Aid Society, New York City (Svetlana Kornfeind of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Order affirmed.
The information charging defendant with harassment in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree contained the following factual allegations:
"the DEPONENT IS INFORMED BY GINA MOFFETT, THAT AT THE ABOVE TIME AND PLACE, THE DEFENDANT DID ENGAGE IN A VERBAL DISPUTE WITH INFORMANT AND DID CALL INFORMANT A FUCKING BITCH AND A WHORE. DEPONENT IS FURTHER INFORMED BY INFORMANT THAT WHEN INFORMANT LEFT THE ABOVE LOCATION TO PREVENT FURTHER CONFRONTATION WITH DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT DID FOLLOW INFORMANT AND TRY TO CONTINUE THE VERBAL DISPUTE, CAUSING INFORMANT TO BECOME SERIOUSLY ALARMED AND SERVING NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE.
"DEPONENT IS FURTHER INFORMED BY INFORMANT THAT A LIMITED ORDER OF PROTECTION WAS ISSUED BY JUDGE CROSS ON NOVEMBER 6, 1996, EFFECTIVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 5, 1997 ON DOCKET NO. 96KO73170 ORDERING DEFENDANT TO REFRAIN FROM ASSAULT, HARASSMENT, MENACING, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, DISORDERLY CONDUCT, INTIMIDATION, THREATS, OR ANY CRIMINAL OFFENSE AGAINST INFORMANT. DEPONENT IS FURTHER INFORMED BY INFORMANT THAT DEFENDANT SIGNED SAID ORDER OF PROTECTION IN COURT ON NOVEMBER 6, 1996.
"DEPONENT IS FURTHER INFORMED BY INFORMANT that informant's THREE YEAR OLD CHILD, SHAKEIRA HOGAN (DOB: 4/6/93) WAS PRESENT DURING THE ABOVE INCIDENT."
A corroborating affidavit of the complainant and a copy of the temporary order of protection were annexed to the information. (A charge of endangering the welfare of a child was dismissed and the dismissal is not challenged on appeal.)
We agree with the court below that the accusatory instrument failed to contain facts supporting the allegation that the defendant engaged in a "course of conduct," since there is no factual detail as to the manner in which he tried to continue the verbal dispute (see, People v Sullivan, NYLJ, Mar. 12, 1997, at 29, col 5 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). We also note that the use of abusive language would not support a conviction of harassment (see, People v Dietze, 75 NY2d 47).
In view of the failure of the accusatory instrument to set forth facts supporting the charge of harassment, defendant cannot be held to have violated the protective order on this ground. We also disagree with the contention of the People that the defendant's conduct constituted intimidation. Consequently, the charge of criminal contempt was also properly dismissed.