People v Doudoulgou (Issa)

[*1] People v Doudoulgou (Issa) 2020 NY Slip Op 50503(U) Decided on May 1, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 1, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Cooper, J.P., Edmead, Torres, JJ.
570055/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Issa Doudoulgou, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Herbert J. Moses, J.), rendered December 20, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Herbert J. Moses, J.), rendered December 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]). The factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that defendant operated a motor vehicle with a "forged temporary Texas licence plate" affixed to the rear, and that defendant, after telling the arresting officer "[t]he car is mine," presented to the officer "two forged Texas registration cards and one forged Texas insurance card." The instrument also sets forth in detail the bases for the officer's knowledge, in addition to his training and experience, that each of the aforementioned items was forged, i.e., the font on the licence plate was larger than the font on a genuine plate, and the plate lacked a hologram and issue date; and the insurance card contained the names of two different insurance companies, and the telephone numbers listed, when dialed by the officer, did not connect with a valid insurance company.

Giving these facts "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find that the accusatory instrument sufficiently alleged criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (see Penal Law § 170.20). For purposes of our threshold, pleading-stage inquiry, defendant's knowledge of the forgery and intent to defraud could be inferred from his actions and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]), including his ownership and operation of a vehicle while possessing forged documents relating thereto (see People v West, 58 Misc 3d 157[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50218[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1089 [2018]; see also People v [*2]Rodriguez, 71 AD3d 450 [2010], affd 17 NY3d 486 [2011]).

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: May 1, 2020