Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Shelter Island, Suffolk County (Helen Rosenblum, J.), rendered December 18, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea, of disorderly conduct.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and fine, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was charged with criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]) and ultimately pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [1]) in satisfaction of the accusatory instrument.

Upon our review of the accusatory instrument, we conclude that under any reasonable interpretation of the facts alleged therein, including defendant's attached statement, the instrument fails to establish prima facie defendant's intent to damage the property of another. While it is the general rule that "the requisite mental state may be alleged on the basis of a logical implication of the act itself or upon the surrounding circumstances" (People v Prevete, 10 Misc 3d 78, 80 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]; People v Stevens, 26 AD3d 396, 397 [2006]; People v McGee, 204 AD2d 353, 354 [1994]), to commit criminal mischief under subdivision (1) of Penal Law § 145.00, a person must have "the specific intent to damage the property of another" (People v Summer, 64 AD2d 658, 659 [1978]; see also People v Roberts, 140 AD2d 961 [1988]). Unintended property damage does not normally constitute a violation of Penal Law § 145.00 (1) (People v Washington, 18 NY2d 366, 369 [1966]; Matter of Carlos M., 32 AD3d 686, 687 [2006]). We note in passing that, under the unique circumstances presented, we are not persuaded that any offense was committed.

McCabe, J.P., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: March 21, 2008