| People v Jones |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04610 [63 AD3d 1643] |
| June 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ShannonJones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard M. Healy, District Attorney, Lyons (Christopher Bokelman of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (John B. Nesbitt, J.), rendered February7, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the firstdegree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two countsof criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]), defendant contends thatthe evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the indictment alleged thatdefendant intentionally disobeyed orders of protection that did not arise from a labor dispute andthe People failed to present evidence that the orders of protection did not arise from a labordispute. We reject that contention. "[T]he 'labor disputes' clause [of Penal Law § 215.50(3)] operates as a proviso that the [defendant] may raise in defense of the charge" (People v Santana, 7 NY3d 234,237 [2006]). Here defendant did not timely raise the issue, nor would it have been appropriate todo so because the orders of protection state that they were issued pursuant to CPL 530.12, whichconcerns orders of protection for victims of family offenses. Thus, contrary to defendant'scontention, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that the orders of protection did notarise from a labor dispute.
We agree with defendant, however, that County Court erred in refusing to suppress hisstatement to the police concerning an allegedly false birth date. The officer who testified at thesuppression hearing failed to provide "some articulable basis" for his stop of the vehicle in whichdefendant was a passenger inasmuch as he did not testify that he had a reasonable suspicion thatthe driver or occupants of the vehicle had committed, were committing, or were about to commita crime or a traffic violation (People v Spencer, 84 NY2d 749, 753 [1995], certdenied 516 US 905 [1995]; see People v Hoglen, 162 AD2d 1036, 1037-1038[1990], lv dismissed 76 NY2d 987 [1990]). We nevertheless conclude that the error isharmless, because the court dismissed the false personation count and the officer's testimony wasmerely cumulative with respect to the criminal contempt counts (see generally People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). We have considered defendant's remainingcontention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra,Peradotto, Carni and Gorski, JJ.