People v Parker (Bruce)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Parker (Bruce) 2019 NY Slip Op 51491(U) Decided on September 18, 2019 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 18, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570395/18

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Bruce Parker, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Angela J. Badamo, J.), rendered May 18, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of forcible touching, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Angela J. Badamo, J.), rendered May 18, 2018, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the instrument "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 was legally sufficient to charge defendant with forcible touching (see Penal Law § 130.52[1]). Allegations that, over the victim's protest and without consent, defendant grabbed her by the arm and leg, and placed his hand inside of her pants and on her buttocks, while he unzipped his pants and began masturbating, were sufficient to support an inference that defendant's conduct was either for his sexual gratification (see Penal Law 130.00[3]; People v Wagner, 72 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 779 [2010]) or for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim (see Penal law 130.55[1]; Matter of Traekwon I., 152 AD3d 431, 432 [2017]; People v Fuller, 50 AD3d 1171, 1175 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 788 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 18, 2019

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.