What is disorderly conduct in New York?

In 2009 approximately 88,000 summons for disorderly conduct were issued for violating New York Penal Law 240.20.  The charge requires that a person, with intent to cause
public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk
thereof:  engages in one or more of the following  activities:
1. engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening
behavior;
2.makes unreasonable noise;
3. uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an
obscene gesture in a public place;
4. disturbs any lawful assembly or
meeting of persons without lawful authority
5. obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic;  6. congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to
comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;
7. creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act
which serves no legitimate purpose.Through the years numerous cases have helped to shape the parameters of behavior that can constitute a violation of 240.20.
FIGHTINGIn some  instances, physically fighting with someone in public–although shamefully embarassing to most– is not necessarily disorderly conduct. For example, In People v. Pritchard, 27 N.Y.2d 246, 247 (N.Y. 1970)a tenager got into a scuffle with another teenager at a teenage dance club.  The officer said he saw the two boys rolling around on the floor of the club striking at each other with their arms and legs flying.  The court held that the fight was not caused with the intent to cause public alarm, but instead was just defendant’s reaction to being provoked.
However,  just because fighting in public might be insufficient for a conviction for disorderly conduct, it might easily supply enough probable cause for an arrest or a summons.  For example, In People v. Brunner, 248 A.D.2d 241, 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1998)  the Court held that defendant’s fighting with another person in the middle of a street while a crowd watched  was sufficient probable cause for an arrest for disorderly conduct.  The Court noted that probable cause to arrest did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of disorderly conduct.
In fact, just being agitated and obnoxious can get one arrested.  In Norasteh v. State of New York, 2007 NY Slip Op 8114, 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2007) probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct was held sufficient based on allegations of claimant’s highly agitated state while on line to see a court clerk, agitating others on line. It was also alleged that claimant made physical contact with a woman who tried to reenter the line after sitting down to fill out paperwork.  This “agitated” state was allegedly witnessed by a court officer responding to the disturbance, and finally, it was alleged that claimant
refused the orders of security personnel causing more agitation.

USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE: Spouting obscenities at an officer–although never a smart move– might not be sufficient for a conviction, but again it depends on the circumstances.  In People v Jackson, 2010 NY Slip Op 50320U, 1-2 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2010) it was alleged that an NYPD officer observed an individual standing in the middle of a one-way street at aout 3:30 in the afternoon presumably shouting the following at an officer  “ WHAT THE F*** ARE YOU GUYS DOING. YOU CAN’T DO NOTHING TO ME. I’M JUST HANGING OUT” 

The Court held that this behavior did not amount to disorderly conduct because even though the officer alleged that the defendant’s utterances “caused people to express alarm,” no specifics are included to support that conclusion. The moral is that shouting obscenities on a public street might be enough to support a charge of disorderly conduct if it can be alleged that someone other than the police officer was offended or alarmed by the behavior. 
But compare that to People v. Zherka, 2009 NY Slip Op 52018U, 2 (N.Y. City Ct. 2009) where an individual who was locked out of an auction at a city hall started yelling profanities at an officer stating, “I pay your f***ing salary”, “You shouldn’t be a cop”, and “You don’t deserve to be a f**ing cop.” According to the officer, a group of people walked up while the defendant was yelling then stopped and watched. the Court held that this behavior amounted to disorderly conduct in light of specific testimony from witnesses that it caused a commotion.  People v. Zherka, 2009 NY Slip Op 52018U, 2 (N.Y. City Ct. 2009)  thereafter refused to cooperate with security personnel.
But in People v Castro, 2010 NY Slip Op 51859U, 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 28, 2010) the Court found that even though the Officer testified credibly when he said that Defendant –mad over a parking ticket–was standing approximately two feet from the officer yelling “If you didn’t have that gun or badge, I would f***  you up,” such words and actions, without more, were insufficient to form the basis for an arrest.

But it is important to remember that regardless of the legal technicalities, Police are human beings with human emotions who also happen to carrry guns, nightsticks, badges and handcuffs.  Enough said.

BLOCKING PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC:  mere inconvenience to pedestrians might not be enough.  in People v. Jones, 2007 NY Slip Op 9070, 2 (N.Y. 2007) the Court of appeals held that a complaint alleging that an officer:
  ”observed defendant along with a number of other individuals standing around a public sidewalk, resulting in numerous persons in the area having to walk around defendants was insufficient. The Court said that “something more than a mere inconvenience of pedestrians is required to support the charge . Otherwise, any person who happens to stop on a sidewalk–whether to greet another, to seek directions or simply to regain one’s bearings–would be subject to prosecution under this statute

Whatever the subsection, keep in mind that a charge of Disorderly Conduct is a violation under the New York Penal Law, punishable by up to 15 days in jail.  While it is not a crime, a plea to a disorderly conduct will result in an open record at the Courthouse which may be visible and available to background checkers.  Many persons charged with misdemeanors are offered a plea to the reduced charge of Disorderly Conduct at some point in the court process.  This results in a partial sealing of the record pursuant to CPL 160.55.  But again, even a partial sealing will keep the Court file available to prying eyes at the Courthouse, including background check companies.  Check with your lawyer about this.