Opinion
2008-771 OR CR.
Decided June 29, 2009.
Appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Minisink, Orange County (Paul Lattimer, J.), rendered January 28, 2008. The order granted an omnibus motion by defendant to the extent of dismissing the information.
Order affirmed.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and NICOLAI, JJ.
The Justice Court granted a motion by defendant insofar as it sought to dismiss the information, which charged him with animal cruelty in violation of Agriculture and Markets Law § 353, upon allegations that he unjustifiably killed his family's dog with a rifle.
We are of the view that the information was jurisdictionally insufficient on its face. CPL 60.50 provides that "[a] person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed." Although said provision only expressly refers to the evidence underlying a conviction, "the requirement that a defendant's confessions or admissions be corroborated has been extended to the accusatory stage of . . . misdemeanors" ( People v Walker , 21 Misc 3d 748 , 751-752 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2008] [citations omitted]; see also People v Dolan , 1 Misc 3d 32, 34 [App Term, 1st Dept 2003]). Thus, the information at bar should be examined to determine whether the complainant officer's allegations regarding the admissions of defendant were sufficiently corroborated by allegations of other evidence showing that the crime charged was committed ( see People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629; People v Zarif, 290 AD2d 401, 401 [CPL 60.50 is satisfied "by the production of some proof, of whatever weight, that a crime was committed by someone"]; Matter of Daniel McC., 250 AD2d 615, 615 ["the petition alleged the requisite corroboration of the appellant's inculpatory statement via the sworn statements of the eyewitnesses to the homicide"]).
A review of the information reveals that aside from the admissions of defendant that he had shot and killed his dog, there were allegations by the officer that he had seen a photograph depicting the dog with defendant's children and that he had visited the residence three times without seeing the dog. While these additional allegations may have been adequate to show, prima facie, the existence of the dog and its absence from the premises, they did not suggest that the dog had been killed, let alone that any crime had been committed ( cf. People v Lipsky, 57 NY2d 560 [while the body of the victim was not found, there was ample circumstantial evidence suggesting the fact that she was killed, thereby corroborating defendant's confession of murder]). Consequently, the information is insufficient on its face ( see Matter of Daniel McC., 250 AD2d 615; Dolan, 1 Misc 3d at 34).
In light of the foregoing, the other issues raised herein are rendered academic.
Accordingly, the order dismissing the accusatory instrument is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Nicolai, JJ., concur.