People v Courtney (Edward)

[*1] People v Courtney (Edward) 2007 NY Slip Op 51000(U) [15 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on May 16, 2007 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 16, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Davis, Schoenfeld, JJ
#570472/06

The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

against

Edward Courtney, June Bieniasz, Carmen Trotto, Paul Fesefeldt, and Matthew Daloisio, Defendants-Respondents,

In consolidated actions, the People appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Deborah Kaplan, J.), dated September 16, 2005, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss the informations for facial insufficiency.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Deborah Kaplan, J.), dated September l6, 2005, affirmed.

The informations charging defendants with criminal trespass in the third degree were properly dismissed as facially insufficient, since they failed to allege facts establishing that the plaza area at issue was "fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders" (Penal Law § 140.10[a]; see People v Moore, 5 NY3d 725, 727 [2005]). The unadorned description of the area in which defendants are said to have trespassed as an "enclosed plaza" served merely to track the general language of the statute, without adding "facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge[]" (CPL 100.50[3]; see People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 16, 2007