evidence establishes violation in New York

1970We have held that a complaint charging disorderly conduct need not .state the charge with the precision required of an indictment (People v. Hippie, 263 N. Y. 242, 244 ) and that a judgment of conviction for disorderly conduct will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any of the subdivisions of the disorderly conduct statute (People v. Carcel, 3 N Y 2d 327, 331).

1957Although the defendants were specifically charged with a violation of subdivision 2 of section 722, it is settled that a judgment of conviction in a case such as this will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any of the subdivisions of that section (People v. Peiner, 300 N. Y. 391, 398 ; People v. Hipple, 263 N. Y. 242, 244 ; People v. Hussock, 6 Misc 2d 182 , cert, denied 312 U. S. 659 ; People v. Kunz, 205 Misc. 316, 321 ).

2022Furthermore, while defendant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of harassment in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 240.26 (1), the evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that, "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm," defendant "follow[ed] [the complainant] in or about a public place or places" (Penal Law § 240.26 [2]). "[A] conviction under Penal Law § 240.26 will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any one of the subdivisions of the statute" ( People v Dorsett , 24 Misc 3d 131[A] , 2009 NY Slip Op 51363[U] , *1 [App Ter

1975Hence, a simplified traffic information charging a violation of subdivision 3 of section 1192 gives notice of the generic offense, and, perforce, sufficient notice of the possibility of conviction under subdivisions 1 or 2 (cf. People v Carcel, 3 NY2d 327, 331 , and People v Todaro, 26 NY2d 325, 330 , stating the rules that although a defendant is charged with a violation of a specific subdivision of sections 240.20 [disorderly conduct] and 240.05 [harassment] of the Penal Law, a conviction will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any of the subdivisions of these sections).

1957Although the defendants were specifically charged with a violation of subdivision 2 of section 722, it is settled that a judgment of conviction in a case such as this will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any of the subdivisions of that section (People v. Peiner, 300 N. Y. 391, 398 ; People v. Hipple, 263 N. Y. 242, 244 ; People v. Hussock, 6 Misc 2d 182 , cert, denied 312 U. S. 659 ; People v. Kunz, 205 Misc. 316, 321 ).

1950Defendant was charged with a violation of clause (c) of subdivision 4 of section 887, but as we recently held in People v. Feiner ( 300 N. Y. 391, 397-398 ), “ it is settled that the judgment of conviction in a case such as this will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any of the subdivisions of the section.

2007If the evidence establishes a defense as a matter of law, dismissal is appropriate (see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, supra at 303; Griffin v Anslow, supra at 891 ).

1987(See, People v Carcel, 3 NY2d 327 [1957]; People v Munafo, 50 NY2d 326 [1980].) Under the facts before this court, however, no other subdivision is applicable. .

1987Throughout the proceedings, counsel demonstrated vigor and competence in defending his client; hence, we cannot conclude that the defendant was denied meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 ; People v Hill, 122 AD2d 810 , lv denied 68 NY2d 914 ; People v Santillana, 118 AD2d 669 , lv denied 67 NY2d 950 ).

1987Throughout the proceedings, counsel demonstrated vigor and competence in defending his client; hence, we cannot conclude that the defendant was denied meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 ; People v Hill, 122 AD2d 810 , lv denied 68 NY2d 914 ; People v Santillana, 118 AD2d 669 , lv denied 67 NY2d 950 ).

1987Throughout the proceedings, counsel demonstrated vigor and competence in defending his client; hence, we cannot conclude that the defendant was denied meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 ; People v Hill, 122 AD2d 810 , lv denied 68 NY2d 914 ; People v Santillana, 118 AD2d 669 , lv denied 67 NY2d 950 ).

1979(See People v Mason, 99 Misc 2d 583, 587 .) It is further noted that it has been held that a complaint charging disorderly conduct need not state the charge with the precision required of an indictment (see People v Todaro, supra), and that a judgment of conviction will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any of the subdivisions of the disorderly conduct law.

1961Consequently, under the rule expressed in Komar v. Dun & Bradstreet Co. ( 284 App. Div. 538 , especially 542-543) liability may be imposed on the owner although the work was being done by an independent contractor.

1957Although the defendants were specifically charged with a violation of subdivision 2 of section 722, it is settled that a judgment of conviction in a case such as this will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any of the subdivisions of that section (People v. Peiner, 300 N. Y. 391, 398 ; People v. Hipple, 263 N. Y. 242, 244 ; People v. Hussock, 6 Misc 2d 182 , cert, denied 312 U. S. 659 ; People v. Kunz, 205 Misc. 316, 321 ).

1957Although the defendants were specifically charged with a violation of subdivision 2 of section 722, it is settled that a judgment of conviction in a case such as this will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any of the subdivisions of that section (People v. Peiner, 300 N. Y. 391, 398 ; People v. Hipple, 263 N. Y. 242, 244 ; People v. Hussock, 6 Misc 2d 182 , cert, denied 312 U. S. 659 ; People v. Kunz, 205 Misc. 316, 321 ).

1957Although the defendants were specifically charged with a violation of subdivision 2 of section 722, it is settled that a judgment of conviction in a case such as this will be affirmed if the evidence establishes a violation of any of the subdivisions of that section (People v. Peiner, 300 N. Y. 391, 398 ; People v. Hipple, 263 N. Y. 242, 244 ; People v. Hussock, 6 Misc 2d 182 , cert, denied 312 U. S. 659 ; People v. Kunz, 205 Misc. 316, 321 ).

1902While satisfactory proof of its violation would devolve upon the court the duty of revoking the certificate, the evidence to sustain a technical charge of this character ought to be such as to satisfy the judgment and the conscience of the court (Matter of Henry, 56 App. Div. 268, 271 ), and we find no reason for differing with the conclusion of the learned court at Special Term.

1890Co., 118 N. Y. 165 .) FTo written consent was indorsed on the policy that it should continue in force while the building was unoccupied, and it is conceded *583 that no recovery can he had unless the evidence establishes a waiver of this provision.