In People v. Ndiaye (9 Misc 3d 1118[A], 808 NYS2d 919, 2005 NY Slip Op 51639[U] [Just Ct of Town of Hyde Park, Dutchess County 2005, Steinberg, J.]) the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument charging the defendant with criminal contempt, second degree Penal law § 215.50 [3]), as being facially insufficient pursuant to CPL 170.30 (1) (a).

In that case the defendant was charged with violating an order of protection directing him to stay 500 feet away from his child's mother except for exercising his visitation with his son at the McDonalds by Marist College.

However, the same order directed that the order "shall NOT apply to such reasonable and peaceful contact and communication."

In that case the complainant argued that the defendant's attempt to exercise his visitation rights at a location other than the McDonalds by Marist College violated said order of protection.

There was no indication that the defendant violated any other provision of law at the time in question.

In granting the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of sufficiency the court relied on the often-stated principal that "the ambiguity in the order insofar as describing what a defendant is required to do or, more to the point, not do, should be resolved in favor of the defendant when such conduct would not run afoul of any other criminal statute."