People v. Reyes (Claudio)

73 Misc. 3d 128(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50901(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: September 28, 2021
• Docket: 570548/16
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

People v Reyes (2021 NY Slip Op 50901(U)) [*1]

People v Reyes (Claudio)

2021 NY Slip Op 50901(U) [73 Misc 3d 128(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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.
570548/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Claudio Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.

In a consolidated criminal proceeding, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julio Rodriguez III, J.), rendered June 23, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Julio Rodriguez III, J.), rendered June 23, 2015, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of the 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 (docket number 2014BX049144) was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of third-degree assault (see Penal Law § 120.00[1]), the offense to which he pleaded guilty. The instrument recited that defendant entered the victim's apartment without permission, "grab[bed]" the victim "by the hair" and "proceeded to strike her several times about the top of the head with a closed fist," causing her to have "swelling and soreness about the top of her head" and "substantial pain." Based upon these allegations, one may reasonably infer that defendant intended to and did cause the victim to suffer a "physical injury,"i.e. "substantial pain" (Penal Law § 10.00[9]; see People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677, 680 [1999]; People v Mercado, 94 AD3d 502 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]), a term which simply means "more than slight or trivial pain" (People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

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