People v. Baly (Rami)

73 Misc. 3d 148(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50008(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: January 10, 2022
• Docket: 570207/17
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Baly (2022 NY Slip Op 50008(U)) [*1]

People v Baly (Rami)

2022 NY Slip Op 50008(U) [73 Misc 3d 148(A)]

Decided on January 10, 2022

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected in part through January 13, 2022; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 10, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., McShan, Silvera, JJ.
570207/17

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Rami Baly, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J. at trial; Laurie Peterson, J., at sentencing), rendered March 2, 2017, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of public lewdness and exposure of a person, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Felicia A. Mennin, J., at trial; Laurie Peterson, J., at sentencing), rendered March 2, 2017, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument, which in this case was required to meet the standards that apply to an information, was not jurisdictionally defective. The factual allegations in the information suffice to establish a prima facie case of public lewdness (see Penal Law § 245.00[a]) and exposure of a person (see Penal Law § 245.01), and in particular satisfy the "public place" element of the offenses. The information adequately described the premises ("the doorway of a building inside Chelsea Park in open view to the public"), defendant's conduct (masturbating with his pants lowered) and the surrounding circumstances (facing the park where young children were present) to warrant the inference that defendant committed lewd acts or intentionally exposed his genitals in a place where he would likely be observed by casual passersby (see People v McNamara, 78 NY2d 626, 634 [1991]; People v Reynoso, 77 AD3d 528 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 955 [2010]).

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the court's determinations concerning credibility. The credited eyewitness testimony, which included the detailed description of defendant's location, state of undress and conduct, was sufficient to establish that he intended to expose the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner, or commit a lewd act in a public place (see Penal Law § 245.00[a]; People v Chang-Correa, 53 Misc 3d 126[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51311[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2016]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: January 10, 2022