People v Zagagoza (Sophia)

[*1] People v Zagagoza (Sophia) 2017 NY Slip Op 50022(U) Decided on January 12, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 12, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Gonzalez, J.
571005/15

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sophia Zagagoza, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Abena Darkeh, J.), rendered September 17, 2015, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal trespass in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction, (Abena Darkeh, J.), rendered September 17, 2015, affirmed.

Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was legally sufficient to charge defendant with criminal trespass in the third degree (see Penal Law § 140.10[a]). Giving the complaint "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 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), that it adequately alleged that the property upon which defendant trespassed - "a catwalk inside the subway tunnel, which is not part of the passenger platform" - was "fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders" (Penal Law § 140.10[a]; see generally People v Rodriguez, 159 AD2d 201 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 742 [1990]; cf. People v Moore, 5 NY3d 725 [2005] [no allegation that public building on college campus was fenced or otherwise enclosed]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 12, 2017