People v. Jimenez
This text of People v. Jimenez (People v. Jimenez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Jimenez
2026 NY Slip Op 50721(U)
May 14, 2026
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Fausto Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Decided on May 14, 2026
570501/22
Present: James, P.J., Brigantti, Perez, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Jeffrey Zimmerman, J. at plea, Michael John Hartofilis, J. at sentencing), rendered August 30, 2022, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted criminal tampering in the second degree, and imposing sentence.
[*1]Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Jeffrey Zimmerman, J. at plea, Michael John Hartofilis, J. at sentencing), 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 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 tampered with the property of a common carrier (see Penal Law § 145.15). The instrument recited that a police officer observed defendant, via video surveillance, "insert a long object into a United States Postal Service mailbox" and that defendant had "in his custody and control, inside of a blue bag, several glue traps and one (1) black belt with adhesive on it." These factual allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant engaged in "tampering" within the meaning of Penal Law § 145.15 (see People v Gittens, 279 AD2d 291 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 829 [2001]; People v Then, 73 Misc 3d 147[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 51267[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 954 [2022]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 14, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI