X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46670 Judge Weinberg DEFENDANT CHARGED, by information, with 27 counts of second-degree aggravated harassment, as well as third-degree stalking and second-degree harassment, sought the information’s dismissal as facially insufficient. The court denied dismissal of the information. It ruled that despite the lack of an allegation of a threat of immediate and real danger, the factual allegations concerning telephone calls and letters by defendant to the complainant established that defendant, with the required intent, engaged in a course of conduct that alarmed or annoyed the complainant, had no legitimate purpose and was likely to cause the complainant to reasonably fear serious physical injury. Finding that defendant’s liability arose from his trespass upon the complainat’s privacy rather than from his expression of speech, the court, distinguishing People v. Dietz, on which defendant relied, rejected his contention that the information against him violated his constitutional free-speech rights.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.