People v Pinkney (Antoine)

[*1] People v Pinkney (Antoine) 2020 NY Slip Op 50682(U) Decided on June 11, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 11, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Torres, JJ.
570136/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Antoine Pinkney, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kate Paek, J.), rendered January 29, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal trespass in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Kate Paek, J.), rendered January 29, 2016, reversed, and the accusatory instrument dismissed.

The accusatory instrument charging defendant with criminal trespass in the third degree (see Penal Law § 140.10[a]) was facially insufficient, since it failed to allege facts establishing that the building at issue was "fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders" (Penal Law § 140.10[a]); see People v Moore, 5 NY3d 725, 727 [2005]). The unadorned description of the area in which defendant is said to have trespassed as a building enclosed with "walls, a roof, and doorway" in a manner "designed to exclude intruders" served merely to track the general language of the statute, without adding "facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge" (CPL 100.15.[3]; see People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]; People v O'Connor, 22 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50395[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists, 2009]; People v Courtney, 15 Misc 3d 140[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51000[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 922 [2007]).

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: June 11, 2020