Opinion
09-21-2023
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ramon Sanabria, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECSION
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, James, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered January 18, 2019, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal trespass in the second degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered January 18, 2019, affirmed.
Since defendant waived his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument charging criminal trespass in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.15[1]) was jurisdictionally valid. The instrument recited that defendant was observed "crouched down in a closet" inside of an apartment whose "door was cracked," and the door handle was "hanging off the door"; that the door was "previously observed... to have no damage"; and that defendant had no "permission or authority to enter" the apartment. These facts provided reasonable cause to believe that defendant knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in a dwelling (see Penal Law § 140.15[1])
Contrary to defendant's contention, the informant security guard's identification of the defendant as the perpetrator was based upon her personal observation of the defendant inside the apartment and was nonconclusory. Any further challenge to the identification of defendant was a matter to be raised at trial, not by insistence that the instrument was jurisdictionally defective (see People v Konieczny, 2 N.Y.3d 569, 577 [2004]; People v Roldan, 71 Misc.3d 135 [A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50426[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2021], leave denied 37 N.Y.3d 995 [2021]).