People v Russo (Anthony)

[*1] People v Russo (Anthony) 2015 NY Slip Op 50337(U) Decided on March 19, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 19, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
571033/12

People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Anthony Russo, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Joanne D. Quinones, J. at plea and sentence; Robert M. Mandelbaum, J. at resentencing), rendered August 22, 2012, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Joanne D. Quinones, J. at plea and sentence; Robert M. Mandelbaum, J. at resentencing), rendered August 22, 2012, affirmed.

In view of the defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 51 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument - alleging, inter alia, that defendant presented to another individual forged MRI results - was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of third degree criminal possession of a forged instrument (see Penal Law § 170.20), the offense to which defendant ultimately pleaded guilty. Defendant's "knowledge" of the forged character of the instrument was satisfied by allegations that the instrument purported to be the results of defendant's own MRI; that was purportedly conducted by Highway Imaging Associates, a facility where defendant was never a patient; and that the results listed a nonexistent medical records number and incorrect phone number for that facility. Based on these allegations, a jury could infer that defendant knew he was not a patient of Highway Imaging Associates, never had an MRI performed there, and would have known the results he possessed were false (see People v Johnson, 65 NY2d 556, 562 [1985]; People v Moore, 41 AD3d 1202 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 879 [2007]). Defendant's intent to defraud or deceive was satisfied by allegations that he entered the office of one Jeffrey Goldstein and presented the false MRI results. Based upon these allegations, it can be inferred that defendant "intended to present [the false MRI results] as real, i.e., to defraud or deceive another" (People v Rodriguez, 71 AD3d 450, 453 [2010], affd 17 NY3d 486 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: March 19, 2015