It appears the “endangerment of a child” is a kind of stretch…but i could see it being squeezed in. The behavior of the couple is deplorable, but I’m having difficulty finding it criminal. Maybe the throwing of the beer at the family would push it across the line for me.
Relevant statute:
§ 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when,
with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or
she:
~~
3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to
physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a
belief or perception regarding such person’s race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability
or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is
correct; or
So I would say yelling racist things at them and then throwing a beer can fits.
Yeah, that’s what I found, too. Here’s the “Endangering the welfare of a child” part:
NY PL 260.10(1)
You are guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child pursuant to New York Penal Law 260.10(1) if you act knowingly in such a way that is likely to cause an injury to the mental state, person of (physical) or moral welfare of a child. This child must be sixteen years old or younger.
That seems very broad.
The content of the rant appears only to be an enhancement to the charge. And set aside throwing beer. Do you really think people should have the right to harrass you with an extended drunken rant at you on public transportation with impunity?
He was a used car salesman! 
(emphasis: was)
Suddenly the hatefulness makes perfect sense.
“In the United States, there are no laws against hate speech. Due to rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, a person can say just about anything he or she wants to another person or group. By itself, such speech is allowed to take place without penalty under the law.”
It was clearly more than hate speech, it was hate speech delivered aggressively and in a threatening manner. Anyway, it was enough for an arrest. The court procedures will determine whether it rises to the definition in the statute, and what, if any (further) penalties they will suffer.
So what? The principal problem here is harrassment.
Legally, assault sometimes doesn’t even need to involve physical contact; just the threat of it. I’m pretty sure that kind of assault isn’t protected by the First Amendment.
That has nothing to do with this. Again, “Do you really think people should have the right to harrass you with an extended drunken rant at you on public transportation with impunity?” The man threatened physical violence at a couple and a child while in an enclosed place they couldn’t get away from. How the fuck is their behavior not criminal!?
And, shocker, of course they aren’t masked. They should be fined for that too.
He could have yelled “You fucking asshole, I hate you you pussy ass weirdo! (etc.etc).” No hate speech involved, but the same crime is committed.
I have lived in both Ronkonkoma and Huntington. The Long Island Railroad out there is so deplorable and overpriced, the riders can be excused for taking it out on innocent minorities. 
I’m as free speech as anybody I know but I draw the line at throwing stuff at a family. That seems like legitimately threatening behavior.
It’s my understanding that assault is the threat of physical harm (or not even harm, just physical contact).
The actual physical part is battery.
I may be wrong on this, willing to be corrected.
mmm
No, you are correct - these are the traditional terms. But, some jurisdictions don’t follow that model, so an assault charge is not always a mere threat.
As to the OP, I’d say the difference is the threat of imminent violence. The defendants didn’t just yell at these people, they put them in fear of being attacked.
If a person gets on a train, and they here another passenger mumble something offensive about them (“fucking Caucasians. Always putting Mayo on bread.”), that’s not a crime (or is at least defensible as protected speech). But if that mumbler adds in threatening speech (“Every whitey should die. Where’s my screwdriver?”), it’s past protected speech and in the realm of crIminal threats.
Right, plain and simple verbal assault, threats or harassment are illegal in themselves. Plus there is also the offense of disturbing the peace/disorderly conduct.
That as a practical reality all that is not enforced Zero-Tolerance style on every single incident of A$$holes On A Train does not mean the authorities will give everyone a pass.
I don’t have an answer to the original question but unfortunately I’m not surprised. My husband rides the Long Island Railroad line to get to work Monday to Friday and says there’s a surge of non-masking riders lately. He says they smirk aggressively, as if they’re daring other passengers to say something.
And I’ve ridden the same train where the incident happened many times coming home from concerts, plays, sports events etc. While most of the riders are all right, there are too many who are rowdy, drunk, entitled and rude. After riding the train with them, I’ve seen that there’s something about attending a game that seems to bring out the worst in some people. The couple who were arrested had probably just been to a game, I’ve seen people on the train looking just like them going to and from sports events in Manhattan.
This is a common misunderstanding, due to schools no longer teaching Civics.
The First Amendment means that The Government cannot make it illegal to criticize the government, and nothing else. It does not apply to conversations between private individuals.
FURTHERMORE:
It does not permit you to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater. It does not permit slander or libel. It does not permit advertising with false claims about the product or false attacks on a competitor. It does not permit incitement to riot.
I could go on and on.
Note that the couple were fired from the dealership because of their behavior on the train, not before it.
From the OP’s article:
Likerman and Digesaro were also both axed from their jobs at the Empire Toyota car dealership in Huntington, Long Island, on Jan. 13 after video of their rant circulated on social media and prompted an internal investigation, dealership general manager Keith Drago confirmed to NBC News.
Having said that, it would indeed be poetic if the harassed couple were offered jobs by that same dealership.
So basically the Pit is not protected speech?