People v. Singleton

• Decision Date: 10 January 2022
• Docket Number: 570373/18
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 50011 (U)
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Farrah Singleton, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2022 NY Slip Op 50011(U)

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Farrah Singleton, Defendant-Appellant.

570373/18

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

January 10, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., McShan, Silvera, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Phaedra F. Perry, J.), rendered March 27, 2018, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction (Phaedra F. Perry, J.), rendered March 27 2018, affirmed.

Since defendant did not waive prosecution by information, we assess the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument based on the standard applicable to an information (see People v Hatton, 26 N.Y.3d 364, 368 [2015). So viewed, the information charging petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 165.40) was jurisdictionally valid because it contained "nonconclusory factual allegations that, if assumed to be true, address[ed] each element of the crime[s] charged thereby affording reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed [these] offense[s]" (People v Matthew P., 26N.Y.3d 332, 335-336 [2015][internal quotation marks omitted] ; see People v Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225 228-229 [2009]). The information recited that, at a specified date and time, and on the corner of Garden Street and Crotona Avenue in Bronx County, defendant "did take [complainant's] jacket, IPhone 6S cell phone, keys, and MetroCard with his hand," and then left the location. The information further alleged that complainant, the owner and lawful custodian of the property, did not give defendant permission or authority to take or remove the property. These allegations were sufficient to provide defendant with notice to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent him from being tried twice for the same offense (see People v Dreyden, 15 N.Y.3d 100, 103 [2010]).

Contrary to defendant's present contention, complainant's identification of defendant as the perpetrator was based upon his personal observation of defendant and was nonconclusory. Any further challenge to the identification of defendant was a matter to be raised at trial, not by insistence that the instrument was jurisdictionally defective (see People v Konieczny, 2 N.Y.3d 569, 577 [2004]; People v Roldan, 71 Misc.3d 135 [A], 20...