People v Johnson (Christopher)

[*1] People v Johnson (Christopher) 2005 NYSlipOp 51258(U) Decided on August 8, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 8, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT:
HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J.
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.


The People of the State of New York, NY County Clerk's #570677/04 Appellant,

against

Christopher Johnson, Defendant-Respondent.

The People appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, rendered July 13, 2004 (Harold Adler, J.) which dismissed the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency.

PER CURIAM:

Order rendered July 13, 2004 (Harold Adler, J.) reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument reinstated and matter remanded to Criminal Court for further proceedings.

The misdemeanor complaint and supporting deposition sufficiently set forth the factual basis for the charge of criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15) by alleging, inter alia, that defendant was observed inside the lobby of an apartment building which was equipped with a locked entrance door and "buzzer system" and marked by "no trespassing" and other signs restricting access; that defendant acknowledged that he lived elsewhere and indicated that he was in the building to visit an individual identified only as "Cookie" in apartment 1-G; and that "Cookie" was not present in the apartment or listed on the tenant's roster. These allegations were sufficient, for pleading purposes, to establish the "knowingly enters or remains unlawfully" element of the charged offense (see People v Babarcich, 166 AD2d 655 [*2][1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 1019 [1990]; People v Darling, 8 Misc 3d 127[A] [2005]). Reversal is also required from a procedural standpoint, since the summary grant of defendant's oral dismissal motion ran afoul of the notice requirements applicable in this post-arraignment context (see CPL 170.30[1], 170.45, 210.45[1]; People v Parker, 223 AD2d 179, 182-183 [1996], lv
denied 89 NY2d 927 [1996]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: August 08, 2005