People v Qureshi (Sher)

[*1] People v Qureshi (Sher) 2014 NY Slip Op 51453(U) Decided on September 22, 2014 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 22, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ.
2010-2948 N CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sher Qureshi, Appellant.

Appeal from two judgments of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Rhonda E. Fischer, J.), rendered October 1, 2010. Each judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of bail jumping in the third degree.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Defendant was charged in two separate misdemeanor informations with bail jumping in the third degree (Penal Law § 215.55). After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of both charges. On appeal, defendant challenges the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instruments.

In order to be facially sufficient, an information, together with any supporting deposition "accompanying or filed in connection with an information" (CPL 100.20), must allege, among other things, nonhearsay facts of an evidentiary nature establishing, if true, each element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof (CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [1]; see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2009]; People v Jones, 9 NY3d 259, 261 [2007]). "So long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]).

A person is guilty of bail jumping in the third degree if he has been released from custody or allowed to remain at liberty by court order, the release was conditioned upon his subsequent appearance in court in connection with the underlying criminal proceeding, and he has failed to appear in court on the required date (Penal Law § 215.55). Giving the accusatory instruments at issue "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d at 360), we find that they are jurisdictionally sufficient. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Tolbert, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: September 22, 2014