v.

KENNETH JONES, Appellant.

Submitted By: Victor M. Levy (counsel for the appellant); Daniel T. Butler (counsel for the respondent)

Conviction Affirmed: Marquette L. Floyd, J.P.; Louis C. Palella and Alan D. Oshrin, JJ.

DECISION OF THE COURT

<SM-1>

Defendant appeals from judgments of the District Court, Nassau County (T. Feinman, J.), rendered October 15, 1998, which convicted him after a jury trial of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20[3]) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30) and imposing sentence.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

An information is sufficient on its face when it contains facts of an evidentiary nature which would establish, "if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof." (CPL 100.40[1][c], 100.15<SM-2>[3]). The failure of the instrument to contain such facts will render same a jurisdictional nullity (see, People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133).

The information at bar charging disorderly conduct states, through non-hearsay allegations, that defendant caused "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creat[ed] a risk thereof . . . [by using] abusive or obscene language." (Penal Law § 240.20[3]). Contrary to defendant's argument, the intent to cause a public disturbance was sufficiently established by the allegation that defendant was "cursing and screaming" at the police and employees of the lounge in the presence of "[o]ther patrons and employees of the lounge." Further, it is wholly reasonable that defendant's conduct directed at the police could have incited a public disturbance involving the patrons of the lounge (see, People v. Todaro, 26 NY2d 325).

We further disagree with defendant's contention that the verdicts were against the weight of the credible evidence. At trial, the People established that defendant cursed and screamed loudly at the arresting police officers, as well as patrons and employees of a nightclub, causing a public disturbance. Further, the evidence sufficiently established that once placed under arrest, defendant assumed a pugilistic stance and then began to flail his arms in an <SM-3> attempt to avoid handcuffing. Thus, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), and in deference to the triers of fact who had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor, we are satisfied that the convictions were supported by the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), and that defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.__