In re Joshua C.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- D.A.D.O. v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)
- Matter of Burden v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, Bd. of Parole (Rochester City Court 2024)
- Matter of Burden v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, Bd. of Parole (Rochester City Court 2024)
- Antic v. City of New York (2d Cir. 2018)
- In re Kendell R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re Armell N. (NYC Family Court 2010)
- In re Daniel M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- In re Shaunise R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging that respondent committed acts that if committed by an adult would constitute the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05). We conclude that Family Court properly granted the petition. Upon arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute between respondent’s parents, the Sheriff’s deputies directed respondent to leave the scene. Respondent refused to leave and instead continued his disruptive behavior. In addition, when a deputy removed respondent’s father to his patrol vehicle and transported him to another location in order to complete the investigation without interference, respondent walked to that location and continued his disruptive behavior. Respondent was then arrested when he approached a deputy who was trying to restrain respondent’s brother. Contrary to respondent’s contention, “inappropriate or disruptive conduct at the scene of the performance of an official function” falls within the ambit of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05) even where, as here, there is no physical force involved (Willinger v City of New Rochelle, 212 AD2d 526, 527; see, Matter of Davan L., 91 NY2d 88, 91-92; People v Tarver, 188 AD2d 938, lv denied 81 NY2d 893). Furthermore, we reject respondent’s contention that the investigation was unlawful because the deputies entered
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.