People v Walker

[*1] People v Walker 2014 NY Slip Op 50849(U) Decided on May 30, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 30, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570924/11

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Rodney Walker, Defendant-Appellant.

In consolidated criminal actions, defendant appeals from two judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), each rendered October 20, 2011, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of theft of services and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgments of conviction (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered October 20, 2011, affirmed.

The accusatory instruments underlying these consolidated Summons Part prosecutions were not jurisdictionally defective. Read together, the informations alleged that defendant, with the requisite intent to obtain transportation services without payment, "enter[ed]; the rear exit" of and remained on a municipal bus while "refus[ing]; to pay the fare," and thereafter "caus[ed]; a public annoyance" when he "threw his body toward" and "attempt[ed]; to knock . . . over" the responding police officers. These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant was guilty of theft of services (see Penal Law § 165.15[3]; People v Pin, 41 Misc 3d 128[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51681[U]; [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]) and second degree harassment (see Penal Law § 240.26[1]). With respect to the harassment charge, defendant's requisite intent to harass, annoy or alarm the police officers was properly inferable from the aggressive conduct attributed to defendant in the information relating to that charge (see generally People v Inserra, 4 NY3d 30 [2004]; cf. People v Hanneman, 19 Misc 3d 73, 74 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: May 30, 2014