People v. SeckPeople v. Seck
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct under a theory that he recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by obstructing pedestrian traffic (see
The original and superseding accusatory instruments were not jurisdictionally defective, since they sufficiently alleged the above-discussed offenses (see generally People v Jackson, 18 NY3d 738, 741 [2012]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., DeGrasse, Richter and Feinman, JJ.