Preview:

[*1]


Decided on January 31, 2007
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

2006NY062804
The People were represented by: Ehren Reynolds, Esq. Assistant District Attorney New York County District Attorney's Office One Hogan Place New York, New York 10013 The Defendant appeared pro se
Anthony J. Ferrara, J.
The charges in this case arise out of an alleged abuse of the 311 Citizen Service Center. In New York City's fiscal year 2006, the 311 system received 1,034,563 New York Police Department related inquiries, 260,915 of which were noise complaints (see Fiscal 2006 Mayor's Management Report, page 116). The New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the agency charged with enforcement of the city's noise code, lists noise complaints as the number one quality of life issue for city residents and touts that the new noise code, effective July 1, 2007, "establishes a flexible, yet enforceable noise code that responds to the need for peace and quiet while maintaining New York's reputation as the City that never sleeps'." (http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/airnoise.html). The Department's website directs aggrieved residents to call 311 in order to contact the Department. (http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/contact.html).
This defendant is charged with making 268 unfounded noise complaint calls to the 311 system resulting in 268 counts of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree (PL 240.50[3][c]), as well as one count of resisting arrest (PL 205.30) and one count of aggravated harassment in the second degree (PL 240.30[1][a]). She is representing herself and by Notice of Motion dated November 16, 2006, an Amended Motion dated November 20, 2006, and Supplemental Omnibus Motion dated January 10, 2007, she has moved to dismiss the information for facial insufficiency and for various other relief.
The superceding information, dated December 19, 2006, alleges that between January 4, 2006, and September 9, 2006, the defendant made approximately 268 [*2]baseless calls complaining about noise emanating from a bar next door to her apartment. The information states that the New York City Police Department is required to dispatch police officers to respond to all noise complaints made through the 311 system. The information further alleges that a police officer visited the bar on multiple occasions during the described period and concluded that the noise level was appropriate and not excessive. On September 9, 2006, the same officer observed the defendant leaving her apartment building and when he tried to arrest her, she swung her arms, kicked the officer in the chest and ran away. At the time of her arrest the officer reports that the defendant stated in substance: "They're not false reports. The bar has an illegal permit. The bar is run by the Irish mob. The police protect it because it's a cop bar. The lieutenant is corrupt. This is the third time I've been kidnapped. I make those calls because I have a common wall with the bar and the noise is unbearable."
Also, the superceding information, dated December 19, 2006, adds the charge of aggravated harassment in the second degree and further alleges that, on November 2, 2006, the officer received an envelope at his home containing a one-page color print-out of a Department of Buildings violation notice against the bar with several sections marked by yellow highlighter. The return address on the envelope was the address of the bar. Additionally, the officer states that an identical copy of the Department of Buildings violation notice, similarly marked by yellow highlighter, was attached to the defendant's pro se motion dated November 20, 2006.
Defendant's motion is decided as follows:
Motion to Dismiss for Facial Insufficiency
An information is facially sufficient if the factual section contains allegations of an evidentiary nature demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged (CPL 100.15; CPL 100.40[1][b]). The facts must be supported by non-hearsay allegations which establish, if true, every element of the charged offense (CPL 100.40[1][c]; People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 135 [1987]). The standard for pleading a prima-facie case is lesser than the heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial (see People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677, 680 [1999]). While the factual allegations of an information must give the defendant sufficient notice to prepare a defense and prevent the defendant from being twice tried for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive reading (see People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]). When assessing the facial sufficiency of an accusatory instrument, a court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Gonzalez, 184 Misc 2d 262, 708 N.Y.S.2d 564 [App Term, 1st Dept 2000], lv. denied 95 NY2d 835 [2000]). However, conclusory allegations are insufficient (see People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729 [1986]) and a court need not ignore common sense or the significance of the alleged conduct in determining facial sufficiency (Gonzalez, 184 Misc 2d at 264).
Falsely Reporting an Incident in the Third Degree
Penal Law 240.50 [3][c] states: "A person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to be false or baseless, he:
[3] gratuitously reports to a law enforcement [*3]officer or agency [c] false information relating to an actual offense or incident to the alleged implication of some person therein." Defendant argues that the 311 Citizen Service Center is not a law enforcement agency covered by the statute. However, law enforcement officers or agencies encompassed by the statute include more than just police departments (see People v. Fuschino, 278 AD2d 657 [3rd Dept 2000] [finding false reports to an employee of public utility that was specifically designated to deal with electric and gas emergencies was covered by Penal Law 240.50[2]). As previously noted, the 311 system received over 260,000 noise related complaints in New York City's fiscal year 2006 (see Fiscal 2006 Mayor's Management Report, page 116). New York City's 311 Citizen Service Center was created to assist residents with non-emergency inquires and its stated mission is to:
1) provide the public with quick, easy access to all New York City government services and information while maintaining the highest possible level of customer service, 2) help agencies improve service delivery by allowing them to focus on their core missions and manage their workload efficiently, and 3) provide insight into ways to improve City government through accurate, consistent measurement and analysis of service delivery Citywide. (http://www.nyc.gov/html/doitt/html/about/about_311.shtml).
The website of the Public Advocate for the City of New York directs residents, when they have a complaint about noise from a bar or nightclub, to call either their local New York City Police precinct or contact the New York City Department of Environmental Protection through the 311 system (http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/services/noise.html). Additionally, the officer alleges in the complaint that he is familiar with the procedure followed by the New York City Police Department in response to 311 calls about excessive noise and that when a noise complaint is made, the New York City Police Department is required to dispatch officers. Accordingly, this Court finds that the 311 Citizen Service Center is a law enforcement agency covered by the statute.
This determination does not defeat defendant's motion to dismiss the 268 counts of false reporting. In order to be sufficient, the information must allege facts of an evidentiary nature demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that the defendant knowingly made false complaints of unreasonable noise. Noise is highly regulated in New York City. The current New York City Administrative Code

Download 2007_50145.pdf

New York Law