New York Court of Appeals, 1939

People v. Monnier

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 28, 1939 · Finch

19 N.E.2d 789; 280 N.Y. 77; 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 1291 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

City of Bismarck v. Travis (N.D. 1967)
Thomas v. State (Miss. 1964)
Vizcarra Castellón v. El Pueblo de Puerto Rico (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1965)
People v. Pettigrew (Suffolk County District Court 1972)
Vizcarra Castellón v. People (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1965)
People v. Bart's Restaurant Corp. (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1964)
People v. Reid (New York County Courts 1943)
People v. O'Neal (Rome City Court 1978)
People v. Gingello (Rochester City Court 1971)
People v. Pritchard (N.Y. 1970)
People v. Ithaca Savings Bank (Ithaca City Court 1969)
People v. Hill (New York County Courts 1969)
People v. Bubbs (New York County Courts 1966)
State v. Boyer (Conn. App. Ct. 1963)
People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
People v. Vest (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
People v. Madnick (New York County Courts 1960)
People v. Rothberg (New York City Magistrates' Court 1957)
People v. Gilinsky (New York County Courts 1952)
People v. Feiner (N.Y. 1950)
People v. Schultz (N.Y. 1950)
The City of Chicago v. Terminiello (Ill. 1948)
People v. Tobin (New York City Magistrates' Court 1947)
City of Chicago v. Terminiello (Ill. App. Ct. 1947)
City of Chicago v. Murray (Ill. App. Ct. 1947)

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

Finch, J.

Even assuming that this defendant called the complaining witness on the telephone and applied to her certain foul epithets which were overheard by the telephone operator, the defendant is not guilty of the offense of disorderly conduct as defined in section 722, subdivisions 1 or 2, of the Penal Law. Such a person must act or speak either with an intent to provoke a breach of the peace or in such a manner “ whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned.” In the case at bar there is no evidence of an intent on the part of the defendant to effect a breach of the peace, nor are the circumstances such as could possibly occasion such a breach. The means employed, to wit, the telephone, would seem to indicate a contrary intention.

In People v. Perry (265 N. Y. 362) the proof showed that a restaurant owner and his employee struck with their fists an acquaintance of the employee; that the fight occurred at four o’clock in the morning when no customers were present in the dimly lighted grill which was not open for business; that three witnesses, who saw the fight from the street, testified that they looked on voluntarily to gratify their curiosity. There it was unanimously held that the acts of defendants did not tend to such a disturbance of the tranquillity of the People as to constitute disorderly conduct in violation of the statute. (Penal Law, § 722, subd. 2.) The facts in the case at bar present a weaker case of alleged disorderly conduct than People v. Perry. Since the decision in People v. Perry, it has been settled that acts charged as disorderly conduct must be public in character, and such as actually to tend to disturb the *79 public peace and quiet. If defendant had uttered the words charged to her in the privacy of the office of complainant, no one else being present, defendant would not have committed the offense of disorderly conduct. (People v. McCauliff, 267 N. Y. 581.) The possibility of a breach of the peace being occasioned under the condition here existing is too remote, and the intent to commit such a breach cannot reasonably be inferred from the evidence. The conduct charged must at least be such that a breach of the peace has become imminent or might reasonably be expected or intended to flow from such conduct.

The judgments should be reversed and the information dismissed.

Crane, Ch. J., Hubbs, Loughran and Bippey, JJ., concur; Lehman and O’Brien, JJ., dissent.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.