People v White (Robert)

[*1] People v White (Robert) 2013 NY Slip Op 51024(U) Decided on June 28, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 28, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Torres, Shulman, JJ
570421/11.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

Robert White, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), rendered March 29, 2011, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of violating New York City Administrative Code

§ 10-136(b)(1), and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Gerald Lebovits, J.), rendered March 29, 2011, affirmed.

We find unavailing defendant's present challenge to the facial sufficiency of the underlying misdemeanor information. The factual portion of the information alleged, inter alia, that the affiant police officer observed defendant "standing directly in front" of the entrance door to a named fast-food restaurant in such a manner as to prevent customers from entering or leaving the establishment "until defendant opened the door"; that defendant "extend[ed]" his hand to restaurant patrons as they entered or exited; and that defendant "knock[ed]" on the restaurant's glass window with both fists while a customer was standing behind the window inside the restaurant. Giving these allegations "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY2d 17, 32 [2009]) that the information adequately alleged that defendant engaged in "aggressive solicitation" of the type prohibited under New York City Administrative Code § 10-136(b)(1)(see 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]).

Defendant's present challenge to the adequacy of his plea allocution, which does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement, is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move to withdraw his guilty plea or seek to vacate the judgment of conviction (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. There is no "uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants," only that it be demonstrated that the plea was voluntary, knowing and intelligent (see People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353 [1967]), cert denied sub nom Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067 [1969]), which is shown by a review of the minutes herein.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
I concur
Decision Date: June 28, 2013