People v Richards (Kiaan)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Richards (Kiaan) 2020 NY Slip Op 50467(U) Decided on April 22, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 22, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Cooper, J.P., Edmead, Torres, JJ.
570063/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Kiaan Richards, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered November 20, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered November 20, 2018, 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 jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see Penal Law § 195.05). The instrument alleges that defendant, an inmate at Riker's Iskand, punched Corrections Officer Steve Kissoon in the face, causing swelling and redness to his jaw, as well as substantial pain, and forcing him to leave his assigned post. A reasonable person could infer from these facts that when defendant punched the officer, he intended to prevent the officer from performing his official duties (see People v Dumay at 525).

In view of our disposition, we reach no other issue.

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: April 22, 2020



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.