People v. King (Sonja)

2024 NY Slip Op 51345(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: September 30, 2024
• Docket: 570414/19
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v King (2024 NY Slip Op 51345(U)) [*1]

People v King (Sonja)

2024 NY Slip Op 51345(U)

Decided on September 30, 2024

Appellate Term, First Department

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

As corrected in part through October 02, 2024; it will not be published in the printed Offical Reports.

Decided on September 30, 2024

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.
570414/19

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sonja King, 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 February 27, 2019, convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 353, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Angela J. Badamo, J.), rendered February 27, 2019, 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 mixed breed dog," was found inside defendant's apartment and that the dog had a "severely matted coat," "smelled of urine," and that "there was no food or water dishes for the dog" inside the apartment. These allegations, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant failed to provide the dog with proper food and sustenance (see People v Vega, 77 Misc 3d 136[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51349[U][App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1157 [2023]; People v Fernandez, 73 Misc 3d 129[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50906[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1096 [2021]; People v Roth, 73 Misc 3d 147[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 51264[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th and 10th Jud Dists [2021]; Jed L. Painter, 2019 Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 2B, Agriculture and Markets Law § 353; see also People v Basile, 25 NY3d 1111 [2015]).

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: September 30, 2024