X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46759 Judge Weinberg DEFENDANT WAS charged with fourth-degree stalking, based on allegations that he: made multiple late-night telephone calls to the complainant while she was at out-of-town hotels; sent multiple e-mails to the complainant’s place of business; followed her from the subway and her place of business; and left copies of a magazine for which he worked at her home. The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the information as facially insufficient, finding that although no verbal threats were alleged, the number of communications made defendant’s course of conduct one likely to cause the complainant to reasonably fear harm. Distinguishing People v. Deitz and Vives v. City of New York, the court rejected defendant’s claim that prosecution under the information unconstitutionally violated his free speech rights. Citing People v. Miguez, the court determined that defendant’s liability arose not from his expression of speech but rather from his repeated trespass on the complainant’s privacy.

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.