People v Castano (Francisco)

[*1] People v Castano (Francisco) 2015 NY Slip Op 50926(U) Decided on June 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 19, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
14-259

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Francisco Castano, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J.), rendered July 1, 2013, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Steven J. Hornstein, J.), rendered July 1, 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 obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see Penal Law § 195.05). The accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that as police were attempting to handcuff an arrestee, one Stephanie Castano, "defendant attempted to push the deponent [officer] and attempted to get in between several officers and . . . Stephanie Castano, thereby delaying their placing her in handcuffs." Contrary to defendant's contention, these allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that the officers were engaged in authorized conduct - attempting to subdue and handcuff an arrested individual (see People v Romeo, 9 AD3d 744, 745 [2004]) - when defendant interfered with the officers' performance of their duties (see Matter of Isaiah C., 96 AD3d 617 [2012]; Matter of Carlos G., 215 AD2d 165 [1995]). We need not consider defendant's present challenge to the facial sufficiency of the disorderly conduct charge, a violation, inasmuch as the accusatory instrument charging him with a misdemeanor was otherwise jurisdictionally valid (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: June 19, 2015