People v. Drexler

• Decision Date: 09 December 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 20110109
• Citation: 73 Misc.3d 1229 (A),155 N.Y.S.3d 544 (Table)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Kyle T. DREXLER, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

73 Misc.3d 1229 (A)

155 N.Y.S.3d 544 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York

v.Kyle T. DREXLER, Defendant.

Case No. 20110109

Justice Court, New York, Town of Webster, Monroe County.

Decided on December 9, 2021

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Monroe County (Jacqueline Moyer, of Counsel), for plaintiff.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Monroe County (Francis Strazzeri ), of Counsel), for defendant.

Thomas J. DiSalvo, J.

Facts of the Case.

The defendant was charged with petit larceny in violation of P.L. § 155.25 on October 12, 2020. It was alleged in the complaint by Officer Frate of the Webster Police Department that the defendant

"... did enter a 2018 Jeep Cherokee ... owned by Kent J. Scott ... and took several items without permission to do so. When the defendant entered Kent J. Scott's Vehicle, he took a Roblox gift card with $30.00 on it, a pair of Oakley Sunglasses valued at $200.00, a bottle of Diddy Unforgivable Cologne valued at $50.00 and $50.00 in cash/change. The total value of the items the defendant took was $330.00."

Attached to the complaint was a supporting deposition, affirmed under penalty of perjury, by the victim of the theft, making the accusatory instrument an information, wherein it stated in pertinent part as follows:

"I Kent J. Scott ... work at Costanzas Meats.... On October 12th 2020 around 2:16 P.M. our CCTV footage showed a white Volkswagen Passat owned by a male named Kyle T. Drexler ... pull into the parking lot of the store. The video then shows Kyle exit the vehicle and begin walking around the building checking all the entrances of the store for unlocked doors and looking into the windows. After he found no doors open he checked our delivery truck to see if than was unlocked. Kyle then checked all of the employees cars to see if they were unlocked. When Kyle got to my car, a Jeep Cherokee ..., he was able to make entry and stole multiple items.¹

... I do not know who Kyle is and have never met him before."

The defense attorney filed omnibus motions, wherein, among other forms of relief, requested that the accusatory instrument charging the defendant with petit larceny be dismissed on the ground that it was facially insufficient, pursuant of CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (a), 170.35(1)(a), 100.40(1)(b) and 100.40(1) (c).

Legal Analysis

The basis of defense counsel's argument is that the accusatory instrument, which is an information fails to contain non-hearsay allegations of an evidentiary nature regarding every element of the offense charged. CPL § 100.40 (1) states that

"An information, or a count thereof, is sufficient on its face when:

(a) It substantially conforms to the requirements prescribed in section 100.15; and

(b) The allegations of the factual part of the information, together with those of any supporting depositions which may accompany it, provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged in the accusatory part of the information; and

(c) Non-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the information and/or of any supporting depositions establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof."

The defense argues that the deponent "does not state the basis [of] his allegation that Kyle Drexler is the owner of the Passat, nor does he provide a non-hearsay basis for his identification of Mr. Drexler, a person he does not know and has never met." In other words nowhere in the deposition does it allege how the identity of the defendant was known by the deponent.

"The prima facie case requirement does not necessitate that the information allege facts that would prove a defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Jennings , 69 NY2d 103, 115, 512 N.Y.S2d 652, 657, 504 N.E.2d 1079, 1084 (1986). But, nevertheless, there must be a reasonable basis for concluding that the defendant before the court is the person who committed the charged offense or offenses. See, e.g., People v. DeFreitas, ––– Misc.3d ––––, 2015 WL 1897624 (Crim Ct NY County 2015)." ( People v. Garcia , 48 Misc 3d 1204(A), 2015 NY Slip Op. 50955(U), *2 [2015])

The allegations in the supporting deposition that it was Kyle Drexler that exited the Passat, that walked around the building checking doors and peering into...