People v Lucas (2007 NY Slip Op 50943(U))

People v Lucas (Debra)

2007 NY Slip Op 50943(U) [15 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on May 7, 2007

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Debra Lucas, Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Maybrook, Orange County (Philip Barnes, J.), rendered January 24, 2006. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

Judgments of conviction reversed upon the law and accusatory instruments dismissed.

The accusatory instrument charging defendant with resisting arrest asserted that Police Officer Lynch was attempting to effectuate an authorized arrest of a third person for the crime of assault in the third degree when defendant "did push and strike the arresting officer, preventing the arresting officer from placing another suspect under arrest." The second accusatory instrument charged defendant with obstructing governmental administration in that she "did intentionally obstruct Police Officer Lynch from effecting a lawfull [sic] arrest by physical force in that the defendant did strick [sic] the officer several times and did physically interfere with the arrest of another." Thus, as the People concede herein, there was a dearth of allegations to provide a sufficient factual predicate establishing the legality of the underlying arrest (see Penal Law §§ 195.05, 205.30; Matter of Anthony B., 201 AD2d 725, 726 [1994]; Matter of Verna C., 143 AD2d 94 [1988]; People v Smith, 13 Misc 3d 142[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52277[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; People v Rodriguez, 1 Misc 3d 135[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51657[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; People v Harper, 2003 NY Slip Op 51350[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; People v Grabinski, 189 Misc 2d 307, 308 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2001]). Since the instruments fail to provide reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offenses charged and to contain nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offenses charged (see CPL 100.40 [1]), they are jurisdictionally defective (see Matter of Verna C., 143 AD2d at 95). [*2]