People v Derissaint (Sonia)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Derissaint (Sonia) 2020 NY Slip Op 51090(U) Decided on September 25, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 25, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Cooper, Higgitt, JJ.
570884/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sonia Derissaint, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Charlotte B. Davidson, J., at plea; Kate Paek, J., at sentencing), rendered November 4, 2016, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Charlotte B. Davidson, J., at plea; Kate Paek, J., at sentencing), rendered November 4, 2016, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of her right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid, since it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25), the offense to which she ultimately pleaded guilty. Allegations that defendant was observed inside Macy's "remov[ing] several items, including four bags, 19 pieces of jewelry ... seven skirts, eight shirts and eight dresses" from the shelves, "plac[ing] the items in shopping bags" and "attempt[ing] to leave the store without paying for the items," were nononclusory and facially sufficient to support the charged offense (see People v Livingston, 150 AD3d 448 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1093 [2017]; see also People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 318-319 [1981]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 25, 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.