People v. Singh (Deonarine)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: February 16, 2018
• Docket: 2018 NYSlipOp 50216(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Deonarine Singh, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered October 8, 2013, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered October 8, 2013, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the pleading standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (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). In this connection, the factual portion of the misdemeanor complaint and supporting deposition alleged, inter alia, that a security officer at a specified Bergdorf Goodman store observed defendant "remove one white scarf from a display," place the scarf around his neck, that defendant was observed "outside the store in possession of the property without paying for it," and that the property "belonged to the store and for which defendant had no receipt." Contrary to defendant's present contentions, these allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that the store was the owner of the scarf and that defendant exercised dominion and control of this merchandise inconsistent with the rights of the owner (see People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 317-319 [1981]; People v Livingston, 150 AD3d 448 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1093 [2017]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 16, 2018