People v Lopatin (Robert)

[*1] People v Lopatin (Robert) 2005 NY Slip Op 50098(U) Decided on February 3, 2005 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 3, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P.
HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
570337/04

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,

against

ROBERT LOPATIN, Defendant-Respondent.

The People appeal from an order of the Criminal Court, New York County, entered on or about April 1, 2003 (Suzanne M. Mondo, J.) dismissing the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency.

PER CURIAM:

Order entered on or about April 1, 2003 (Suzanne M. Mondo, J.) reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument reinstated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

We find unavailing defendant's contention that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective by failing to include nonhearsay allegations supporting the charged offense. The factual portion of the information contained the arresting police officer's sworn statement that, at a specified time and location, he observed defendant, inter alia, "shove [his] pelvic area into [the victim's] face" and "push [the victim] in the chest area causing [her] her to stagger backwards". These factual allegations, given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are clearly sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant committed the offense of second-degree harassment. Contrary to defendant's contention, the officer's firsthand [*2]account of the altercation was not in need of "corroboration" by a "supporting affidavit" from the victim.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur
Decision Date: February 03, 2005