People v Ward (Glenn)

[*1] People v Ward (Glenn) 2015 NY Slip Op 50879(U) Decided on June 10, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 10, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.
570856/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Glenn Ward, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), rendered March 28, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), rendered March 28, 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 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 aggressive begging in a public place (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-136[b][1]). In this connection, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that on a sidewalk in front of a specified Popeye's Restaurant, defendant was observed "approach[ing] numerous pedestrians" and stating "in a loud voice, give me money while pointing [his] index finger at said pedestrian[s]"; and that defendant "obstruct[ed] the doorway" to said restaurant, "causing multiple pedestrians to have to walk around" him in order to enter and exit the restaurant. 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" (People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]; see People v White, 40 Misc 3d 126[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51024[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1044 [2013]; People v Nathaniel, 29 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52074[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 897 [2011]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 10, 2015