Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Dorothy Chin-Brandt, J.), rendered August 18, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of resisting arrest.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). On appeal, defendant contends that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to allege sufficient facts to establish any crime for which he could have been validly arrested.

The accusatory instrument was facially sufficient to charge the crime of resisting arrest. It contained an adequate factual showing that the initial placement of defendant under arrest was authorized, since the officers had probable cause to arrest him for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see Penal Law §§ 195.05, 205.30; CPL 100.15, 100.40; Matter of Carlos M., 32 AD3d 686, 687 [2006]). This showing included allegations that the officers had responded to the scene as the result of a radio run of a family dispute involving a knife, that defendant cursed at them, and that defendant threw various items" in the officers' direction. Such allegations would establish, if true, that the police were performing an official function by investigating an incident involving a dispute and a knife when defendant interfered with them (id.). While it has been held that in order to establish obstructing governmental administration, the interference by the defendant would have to be, in part at least, physical in nature" (People v Case, 42 NY2d 98, 102 [1977]), the interference by defendant with the officers' investigation in the case at bar as alleged in the accusatory instrument was sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements since defendant was alleged to have thrown various items in the named officers' direction (see People v Crandall, 272 AD2d 717, 717 [2000]; People v Fellows, 239 AD2d 181, 183 [1997]). [*2]

The accusatory instrument also contained ample factual allegations establishing, if true, that defendant resisted his own arrest by pushing a named police sergeant when the officers attempted to handcuff him, attempting to punch said sergeant, pushing another named officer and trying to grab the sergeant's gun during the struggle (e.g. Matter of Carlos M., 32 AD3d 686 [2006], supra). In view of the foregoing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 20, 2008