People v. Singleton (Farrah)

Jan 10, 2022
570373/18
Versions:

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., McShan, Silvera, JJ.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Phaedra F. Perry, J.), rendered March 27, 2018, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Phaedra F. Perry, J.), rendered March 27, 2018, affirmed.

Since defendant did not waive prosecution by information, we assess the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument based on the standard applicable to an information (see People v Hatton, 26 NY3d 364, 368 [2015]). So viewed, the information charging petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 165.40) was jurisdictionally valid because it contained “nonconclusory factual allegations that, if assumed to be true, address[ed] each element of the crime[s] charged, thereby affording reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed [these] offense[s]” (People v Matthew P., 26 NY3d 332, 335-336 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2009]). The information recited that, at a specified date and time, and on the corner of Garden Street and Crotona Avenue in Bronx County, defendant “did take [complainant‘s] jacket, IPhone 6S cell phone, keys, and MetroCard with his hand,” and then left the location. The information further alleged that complainant, the owner and lawful custodian of the property, did not give defendant permission or authority to take or remove the property. These allegations were sufficient to provide defendant with notice to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent him from being tried twice for the same offense (see People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]).

Contrary to defendant‘s present contention, complainant‘s identification of defendant as the perpetrator was based upon his personal observation of defendant and was nonconclusory. Any further challenge to the identification of defendant was a matter to be raised at trial, not by insistence that the instrument was jurisdictionally defective (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004]; People v Roldan, 71 Misc 3d 135[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50426[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 995 [2021]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: January 10, 2022