Legal Opinion

People v. Mangano

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided June 6, 2002Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

*361Penal Law § 240.30 (1) does not prohibit mere speech or expression, but proscribes the use of, inter alia, a telephone to communicate in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm (cf., People v Shack, 86 NY2d 529, 535; People v Liberato, 180 Misc 2d 199, 201). We find the statute neither unconstitutional on its face nor as applied to the facts. Defendant’s messages, left on complainants’ workplace telephone answering machine, contained threats to them and their families, profanely abusive language, and thinly-veiled references…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. People v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Cohen v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Lehman v. City of Shaker HeightsSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. People v. ThomasNew York Court of Appeals · 1980

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API