People v Parlagreco (Angelo)

[*1] People v Parlagreco (Angelo) 2015 NY Slip Op 50247(U) Decided on March 2, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 2, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570843/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Angelo Parlagreco, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Joanne D. Quinones, J.), rendered July 9, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence. Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Joanne D. Quinones, J.), rendered July 9, 2012, affirmed.

We find unavailing defendant's present challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging him with petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). As defendant effectively concedes, the intent and asportation elements of the charged offense were satisfied, for purposes of our threshold, pleading-stage inquiry, by police allegations that defendant, at a specified time and location, was observed "on video" as he "remove[d] three (3) boxes from a FedEx hand truck and exit said building with said boxes." Contrary to defendant's lone contention, the statement attributed to a named FedEx employee, identified as a custodian of the property, that defendant "did not have permission or authority to take or possess the property," was "sufficiently evidentiary in character" to support a finding that the alleged taking was wrongful (see generally People v Allen, 92 NY2d 378, 385 [1998]).

We have assessed defendant's facial sufficiency claim by applying the pleading standard required of a misdemeanor complaint, in view of defendant's knowing waiver of the right to be prosecuted by an information (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: March 02, 2015