People v. Kim (Jennifer)

75 Misc. 3d 133(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50490(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: June 15, 2022
• Docket: 570496/15
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Kim (2022 NY Slip Op 50490(U)) [*1]

People v Kim (Jennifer)

2022 NY Slip Op 50490(U) [75 Misc 3d 133(A)]

Decided on June 15, 2022

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 15, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.
570496/15

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jennifer Kim, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J., at plea; Laurie Peterson, J., at sentencing), rendered March 26, 2015, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J., at plea; Laurie Peterson, J., at sentencing), rendered March 26, 2015, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of her right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [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 petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25). The instrument recited that defendant was observed on video surveillance taking complainant's tote bag from a table in a bar, without complainant's permission or authority to take or possess the bag or its contents. Contrary to defendant's present contentions, these allegations and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant "exercised dominion and control over the property for a period of time, however temporary, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the owner's continued rights," thereby satisfying the "taking" element of the offense (People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 118 [1986]; see People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 317-318 [1981]; People v Livingston, 150 AD3d 448 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1093 [2017]); and her larcenous intent is readily inferable from the surrounding circumstances of her actions (see People v Olivo, 52 NY2d at 320 n 8; see also People v Jennings, 69 NY2d at 118). That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from the facts is irrelevant on this pleading stage inquiry (see People v Deegan, 69 NY2d 976, 979 [1987]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: June 15, 2022