Majority
Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (John B. Nesbitt, J.), rendered February 7, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree (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 counts of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the indictment alleged that defendant intentionally disobeyed orders of protection that did not arise from a labor dispute and the People failed to present evidence that the orders of protection did not arise from a labor dispute. 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 to do so because the orders of protection state that they were issued pursuant to CPL 530.12, which concerns orders of protection for victims of family offenses. Thus, contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that the orders of protection did not arise from a labor dispute.
Cases cited
- People v. Santana 7 NY3d 234 at 237 p. 1643
- People v. Spencer 84 NY2d 749 at 753 p. 1644
- People v. Hoglen 162 AD2d 1036 at 1037-1038 p. 1644
- People v. Crimmins 36 NY2d 230 at 241-242 p. 1644