People v. Hanneman

OPINION OF THE COURT

Judgment of conviction, rendered March 10, 2006, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and fine, and surcharge remitted.

The information charging defendant with disorderly conduct (see Penal Law § 240.20 [3]) was jurisdictionally defective, since it failed to allege “the essential element of either intent or recklessness” (People v Tarka, 75 NY2d 996, 997 [1990]). Contrary to the People’s contention, defendant’s requisite intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm is not properly inferable from the single hand gesture attributed to defendant…