People v. Fernandez (Edna)

73 Misc. 3d 129(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50906(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: September 28, 2021
• Docket: 570615/19
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Fernandez (2021 NY Slip Op 50906(U)) [*1]

People v Fernandez (Edna)

2021 NY Slip Op 50906(U) [73 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on September 28, 2021

Appellate Term, First Department

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 28, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Brigantti, Hagler JJ.
570615/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Edna Fernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Angela J. Badamo, J.), rendered May 2, 2018, convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Angela J. Badamo, J.), rendered May 2, 2018, affirmed.

Since defendant waived 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 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 353, which punishes one who "overdrives, overloads, tortures ... or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or neglects or refuses to furnish it such sustenance or drink ..." The arresting officer alleged that the animal, a male pitbull, was on a very short leash inside defendant's apartment, surrounded by and covered in its own urine, had abrasions on its tail, walked with a limp and was emaciated; and a forensic veterinarian determined the dog was "underweight, had diminished muscle mass" and hair coat that was "dirty" and had a "foul odor." These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant failed to provide the dog with proper food and sustenance (see People v Torres, 69 Misc 3d 128[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51130[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 977 [2020]; see also People v Basile, 25 NY3d 1111 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 28, 2021