Opinion
570740/06.
Decided April 2, 2008.
The People appeal from an order of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), dated May 26, 2006, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument for facial insufficiency.
Order (Robert E. Torres, J.), dated May 26, 2006, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument reinstated and matter remanded for further proceedings.
PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, HEITLER, JJ.
The information, consisting of the misdemeanor complaint and supporting deposition, sufficiently set forth the factual basis for the charges of criminal trespass in the second degree and criminal trespass in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 140.15, 140.10[a]) by alleging that defendant was observed inside the lobby of an apartment building that was marked by "no trespassing" signs and equipped with a locked entrance door and "buzzer system;" that defendant acknowledged that he lived elsewhere, and that although defendant stated that he was in the building to visit an individual identified solely as "Arlene in apartment 1-H," the arresting officer was unable to locate anyone inside that apartment who could verify defendant's reason for being in the building. These allegations were sufficient, for pleading purposes, to establish the "knowingly enters or remains unlawfully" element of the charged offenses ( see People v Johnson , 8 Misc 3d 137 [A] [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 853); People v Darling, 8 Misc 3d 127[A] [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 851) and that the dwelling premises was "fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders" (Penal Law § 140.10[a]; see People v Johnson, 13 Misc 3d 126[A] [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 902).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.