You are here: / / Family Offense of Disorderly Conduct Not Proven—No Proof of Public...
,

Family Offense of Disorderly Conduct Not Proven—No Proof of Public Inconvenience, Annoyance, or Alarm

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Skelos, the Second Department determined the wife’s allegations against her husband did not demonstrate the family offense of disorderly conduct.  The wife alleged the husband tried to push her down stairs, twisted her arm and pushed her against a wall. Under the Penal Law, disorderly conduct requires an intent to cause or the reckless creation of a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.  However, Family Court Act section 812 provides: “For purposes of this article, disorderly conduct included disorderly conduct not in a public place.”  The Second Department determined that, even in the context of a family offense proceeding, the “public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” element must be proven:

We … hold that, even where the conduct at issue is alleged to have occurred in a private residence, in order for a petitioner to meet his or her burden of establishing the family offense of disorderly conduct, there must be a prima facie showing that the conduct was either intended to cause, or recklessly created a risk of causing, public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. The intent to cause, or recklessness in causing, public harm, is the mens rea of the offense of disorderly conduct … . The plain language of the subject provision of Family Court Act § 812, in contrast, provides only that the conduct need not occur in a public place (see Family Ct Act § 812). The plain language of Family Court Act § 812 therefore pertains only to the actus reus of the offense—specifically, the place where it is committed—and does not speak to the mens rea of the offense. Indeed, since Family Court Act § 812 does not specify an alternative culpable mental state, if the mens rea provided for in the Penal Law were not applicable in family offense proceedings, it is unclear what the mens rea of this family offense would be. * * *

One can certainly contemplate conduct occurring in a private residence that is intended to cause, or evinces a reckless disregard of causing, public harm. Such conduct might include, for example, a loud fight, or a loud argument with disturbing content, occurring in an apartment building late at night, or under other circumstances where the public may reasonably be expected to hear or see the altercation. As the Court of Appeals has observed, “the risk of public disorder does not have to be realized,” in order to infer that an individual intended to cause, or recklessly disregarded the risk of causing, such a threat… . Matter of  Cassie v Cassie, 2013 NY Slip Op 05446, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

You might also like
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CONDITION OF CITY OWNED TREE WELL WITHIN SIDEWALK.
MATTER REMITTED FOR A REOPENED SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE THAT THE VEHICLE STOP MAY HAVE BEEN BASED UPON INFORMATION FROM AN ANONYMOUS BYSTANDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OR A CO-EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Child Properly Found to Be a Vulnerable Witness and Properly Allowed to Testify Outside the Presence of the Defendant in a Sexual -Offense Trial
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND THE PRINTOUT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE STARTED WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED BY THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY LIMITED THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING OF A DOCTOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PROPERLY ORDERED THAT THE DEPOSITION BE SUPERVISED BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT ON BOTH SIDES DURING A PRIOR DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

E-Mail Met All Criteria for a Stipulation of Settlement Including the “Subscribed... Out of State Visitation for All School Breaks and Three-Day Weekends (In Addition...