People v Jin Lee

[*1] People v Jin Lee 2008 NY Slip Op 50560(U) [19 Misc 3d 1105(A)] Decided on March 18, 2008 Criminal Court Of The City Of New York, New York County Weinberg, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 18, 2008
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,

against

Jin Lee, Defendant.



2008CN000666



For D: William P Knisley, 401 Broadway, Suite 601, NY, NY 10013, (212) 966-6704.

For the People: NY County District Attorney's Office by ADA Chevon Walker, (212) 335-9905.

Richard M. Weinberg, J.

Defendant is charged with one count of Prostitution in violation of Penal Law §230.00. She moves for an order dismissing the information as facially insufficient under Criminal Procedure Law §100.40.

Criminal Procedure Law §100.40 and, by reference, Criminal Procedure Law §100.15 require that factual allegations of an evidentiary character in the information provide reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the offenses charged and that non-hearsay factual allegations establish a prima facie case that the defendant is guilty. (People v. Allen, 92NY2d 378). While an information must state the crime with which the defendant is charged and the particular facts constituting that crime (People v Hall, 48NY2d 927), the prima facie requirement is not the same as the burden of proof required at trial. (People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677). 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).

Penal Law §230.00 is violated when a person agrees to engage in sexual conduct with another person.

The information is comprised of a misdemeanor complaint and a supporting deposition. The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Penal Law §230.00 and provides her with [*2]notice that she must defend against a charge that, at a specified time, date and place, she "agreed to engage in Sexual Conduct with UC, shield 02015 of the MSVES. to wit: sexual intercourse in exchange for $200.00 U.S. currency." The undercover officer's supporting deposition states that "the defendant agreed to engage in Sexual Conduct with me, to wit, sexual intercourse in exchange for $200.00 United States Currency".

These factual allegations are sufficiently evidentiary in character to satisfy the relevant CPL requirements and the allegations tend to support the charge. The allegations establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that the defendant committed the charged crime. "At the pleading stage, nothing more is required." (People v Allen, supra, at 385).

Defendant's argument that the "agreed" language in the accusatory instrument is insufficient in the absence of further details is likewise without merit. See People v Hilo, 4 Misc 3d 132(A) (App Term, 2d Dept).

Defendant's final argument is based on allegations in complaints under other docket numbers which have been filed against two separately charged women who were arrested at the same time and place as the defendant Jin Lee. She asserts that the allegations in these other two complaints establish that defendant Lee "never made any agreement with UC 2015."

While the facts alleged in those two other complaints might be of some use to defendant at trial, they are without relevance to this motion. When a Court is considering a facial sufficiency motion, its review is limited to the allegations in the complaint and any accompanying supporting depositions. It may not consider extraneous allegations. See CPL §100.40 (1); People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133; accord: People v Lewis, 162 Misc 2d 954; People v Voelker, 172 Misc 2d 564; People v Whidbee, 8 Misc 3d 1023(A). As noted above, the documents filed in this case satisfy the statutory requirements for a facially sufficient information.

Defendant's motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:___________________________

New York, New YorkJudge of the Criminal Court