People v Diallo (Cheikh)

[*1] People v Diallo (Cheikh) 2015 NY Slip Op 50723(U) Decided on May 15, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 15, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570963/13

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Cheikh Diallo, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), rendered September 13, 2013, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Verna L. Saunders, J.), rendered September 13, 2013 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 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of the charged offense of unlicensed general vending (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 20—453). In this connection, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that at a specified time and street location, defendant, lacking the requisite license, "displayed" and "offer[ed] for sale" various items, including "rings, necklaces, other assorted jewelry, and scarves," while "standing behind" a table upon which the items were displayed, with signs indicating that the items were for sale and the various prices. Such allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes since they provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (see People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]; People v Abdurraheem, 94 AD3d 569 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; People v. Zhou Yu, 4 Misc 3d 128[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50630[U] [App Term, lst Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 713 [2004]).

We need not consider defendant's present challenge to the facial sufficiency of the charged offense of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20), a violation, inasmuch as the accusatory instrument charging unlicensed general vending, a misdemeanor, was otherwise jurisdictionally valid. "A bargained guilty plea to a lesser crime makes unnecessary a factual basis for the particular crime confessed" (People v Clairborne, 29 NY2d 950, 951 [1972]; see People v Fofana, 15 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50807[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007], reconsideration denied 9 NY3d 875 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 15, 2015