People v. Quispe (Antonio)

76 Misc. 3d 135(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50944(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: September 27, 2022
• Docket: 570481/16
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Quispe (2022 NY Slip Op 50944(U)) [*1]

People v Quispe (Antonio)

2022 NY Slip Op 50944(U) [76 Misc 3d 135(A)]

Decided on September 27, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 27, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.
570481/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Antonio Quispe, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Heidi C. Cesare, J.), rendered May 26, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Heidi C. Cesare, J.), rendered May 26, 2016, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (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 sexual abuse in the third degree (see Penal Law § 130.55). The instrument recited that defendant "push[ed] his groin against a woman's buttocks" near the ice skating rink at Rockefeller Center and "repeatedly rub[bed] against her"; that the victim "turn[ed] around and look[ed]" at defendant, appearing "alarmed"; and that defendant repeated this conduct after the victim moved away. The deponent officer further stated that defendant engaged in the same conduct with four additional women, one of whom appeared "annoyed, angry and alarmed" and stated that defendant "humped me." These allegations were sufficient to support the inference that defendant acted for the purpose of sexual gratification and without the victims' consent (see People v Bookard, 167 AD3d 424 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see also People v Hatton, 26 NY3d 364, 370 [2015]; People v Guaman, 22 NY3d 678 [2014]). The absence of a verbal protest by the victims does not compel a finding that she impliedly acquiesced in the sexual contact to which she was subjected (see Penal Law § 130.05[2][c]; People v D'Alessio, 9 Misc 3d 64 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 851 [2005]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: September 27, 2022