People v Man Wing Wong

[*1] People v Man Wing Wong 2012 NY Slip Op 51987(U) Decided on October 10, 2012 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 10, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ
2011-2611 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

against

Man Wing Wong, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Stephen L. Ukeiley, J.), dated September 14, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the accusatory instrument charging defendant with violating Brookhaven Town Code § 85-370 (C) (4).

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, on the law, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument charging him with violating Brookhaven Town Code § 85-370 (C) (4) is denied, that accusatory instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for all further proceedings thereon.

Defendant was charged in separate informations with violating, respectively, Brookhaven Town Code § 85-370 (C) (4) and § 82-3. Subsequently, defendant moved to dismiss the informations. The District Court granted defendant's motion on the ground that the informations were jurisdictionally defective, and the People appeal from so much of the order as dismissed the information charging defendant with violating Brookhaven Town Code § 85-370 (C) (4).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the subject information is facially sufficient, in that it (and/or its supporting depositions) allege "facts of an evidentiary character" (CPL 100.15 [3]) which "establish, if true, every element of the offense charged" (CPL 100.40 [1] [c]; see People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). The law does not require that the most precise words or phrases which most clearly express the thought be required in an information, but only that the crime be alleged and the specifics set forth so that a defendant can prepare himself for trial, and so that he will not be tried again for the same offense (see People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100 [2010]; People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004]; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument charging him with violating Brookhaven Town Code § 85-370 (C) (4) is denied, that accusatory instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for all further proceedings thereon.

Iannacci, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 10, 2012