People v. Suarez

• Decision Date: 01 February 2016
• Citation: 51 Misc.3d 620,28 N.Y.S.3d 557
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Andrew SUAREZ, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

51 Misc.3d 620

28 N.Y.S.3d 557

The PEOPLE of the State of New York

v.Andrew SUAREZ, Defendant.

Criminal Court, City of New York, New York County.

Feb. 1, 2016.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., New York County District Attorney, by A.D.A. Tatiana Herschlikowicz, for the People.

The Legal Aid Society by Takiya Wheeler, for the Defendant.

STEVEN M. STATSINGER, J.

Defendant, charged with bail jumping in the third degree, Penal Law § 215.55

, moves to dismiss, arguing that the information is facially insufficient. Here, however, the information alleges facts that make out a prima facie case of bail jumping. In any event, the Court takes judicial notice of its own records in the underlying case which, as of the date of this opinion, is still open. Those records contain facts that make out a prima facie case of bail jumping.

Finally, as a matter of apparent first impression, the Court concludes that the filing of a copy of defendant's rap sheet converted the misdemeanor complaint into an information.

Accordingly, for all these reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Allegations

According to the information, defendant was released on his own recognizance in a criminal case in which he was charged with a misdemeanor, and was required to appear in court on a future date. He then failed to appear in court on that date, or on any date within thirty days of that date.

B. Legal Proceedings

Defendant was arraigned on October 28, 2015, on a misdemeanor complaint charging him bail jumping in the third degree, in violation of Penal Law § 215.55

. The court set bail, and adjourned the case for conversion.

On November 2, 2015, the People filed and served defendant's rap sheet, and the Court deemed the instrument converted to an information. Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss on December 30, 2015, and the People responded on January 13, 2016. The matter has been sub judice since then.

II. THE INFORMATION

The misdemeanor complaint, sworn out by Detective James Cleary, provides that:

I have examined the defendant's rap sheet, which is a digest of records kept and maintained in the regular course of business by the State of New York and have determined the following:

by court order, the defendant was released from custody on his own recognizance and allowed to remain at liberty upon the condition that the defendant subsequently appear in person;

on July 28, 2014, in New York City Criminal Court Part D, in connection with Docket No. 2014NY003458, a criminal proceeding charging the defendant with a misdemeanor, the defendant failed to appear in court as required on that date or within 30 days after that date.

As noted above, the People converted the misdemeanor complaint into an information by filing a copy of defendant's rap sheet.

III. DISCUSSION

The information here is facially sufficient because it contains non-hearsay allegations that lead to a reasonable inference as to each and every element of bail jumping in the third degree.

A. Facial Sufficiency in General

A misdemeanor information serves the same role in a misdemeanor prosecution that an indictment serves in a felony prosecution: It ensures that a legally sufficient case can be made against the defendant. People v. Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518, 992 N.Y.S.2d 672, 16 N.E.3d 1150 (2014)

; People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 138–39, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927, 930–31, 511 N.E.2d 71, 74 (1987). Accordingly, a misdemeanor information must set forth "nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof." People v. Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225, 228–29, 906 N.E.2d 381, 383, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 655 (2009) (citing People v. Henderson, 92 N.Y.2d 677, 679, 685 N.Y.S.2d 409, 708 N.E.2d 165 (1999) and CPL 100.40(1)(c) ). This is known as "the prima facie case requirement." Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d at 229, 906 N.E.2d at 383, 878 N.Y.S.2d at 655.

The prima facie case requirement does not necessitate that the information allege facts that would prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 115, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 657, 504 N.E.2d 1079, 1084 (1986)

. Rather, the information need only contain allegations of fact that "give an accused sufficient notice to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense."

People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 360, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 91, 740 N.E.2d 233, 236 (2000)

. A court reviewing for facial insufficiency must subject the allegations in the information to a "fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading," id., assume that those allegations are true, and consider all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them. CPL §§ 100.40, 100.15 ; People v. Jackson, 18 N.Y.3d 738, 747, 944 N.Y.S.2d 715, 721–22, 967 N.E.2d 1160, 1166–67 (2012). See also Casey, 95 N.Y.2d at 360, 717 N.Y.S.2d at 91, 740 N.E.2d at 236.

B. The Information Is Facially Sufficient.

To sufficiently plead a violation of Penal Law § 215.55

, the People must allege that the defendant "having been released from custody or allowed to remain at liberty in connection with a criminal charge ... fail[ed] to appear in court on the required date or voluntarily within thirty days thereafter." People v. Coppez, 93 N.Y.2d 249, 250, 689 N.Y.S.2d 692, 711 N.E.2d 970 (1999), citations and internal quotation marks omitted; People v. Harris, 54 A.D.2d 739, 387 N.Y.S.2d 661 (2d Dept.1976). The defendant's culpable mental state, or lack thereof, is immaterial at the pleading stage. People v. Manitaras, 55 A.D.2d 629, 389 N.Y.S.2d 632 (2d Dept.1976). In addition, the instrument need not allege facts that might negate the affirmative defenses enumerated in Penal Law § 215.59. People v. Villarreal, 27 Misc.3d 269, 898 N.Y.S.2d 761 (Crim.Ct., Queens County 2009).

Here, a prima facie case as to each of these elements is made out by the information. It alleges that defendant was released on his own recognizance in a criminal case in which he was charged with a misdemeanor, and that he failed to appear in court on a required date or within thirty days thereafter. Nothing more is required.

C. The Court Can Take Judicial Notice of the Content of the Court File of the Underlying Case

Alternatively, the People invite the Court to take judicial notice of the records relating to the underlying case. Herschlikowicz Aff. at ¶ 6. The Court accepts the invitation.

Judicial notice is "is knowledge which a Court takes of a matter without evidence having been introduced to establish it." People v. Sowle, 68 Misc.2d 569, 327 N.Y.S.2d 510 (County Court Fulton County 1971)

. "Whether courts will take judicial notice of matters of fact depends on the nature of the subject, the issue involved and the apparent justice of the case." Id. Examples of the sorts of facts of which a court may take judicial notice are "geographical facts and the location of streets" and "public records." Id.

Courts are not required to take judicial notice of matters of fact, and whether they should do so "depends on the nature of the subject, the issue involved, and the apparent justice of the case." Hunter v. New York O. & W. Ry. Co., 71 Sickels 615, 116 N.Y. 615, 23 N.E. 9 (1889)

. Not all facts are within the bounds of judicial notice. For example, in Vann v. Ionta, 157 Misc. 461, 284 N.Y.S. 278 (Mun.Ct. Queens County 1935), the court noted that even if a judge had personal knowledge of "the adaptability of some barbers to jest and humor so as to entertain their patrons," that would "not permit the taking of judicial notice."

But "matters of public record," such as "an incontrovertible official document or other reliable documents, the existence and accuracy of which are not disputed ... and information culled from" them are fine. Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Brooklyn Barber Beauty Equipment Co., Inc.,

191 Misc.2d 1, 740 N.Y.S.2d 180 (Civ.Court N.Y. County 2001), citations and internal quotation marks omitted. See, e.g., Sunhill Water Corp. v. Water Resources Commission, 32 A.D.2d 1006, 301 N.Y.S.2d 935 (3d Dept.1969) (taking judicial notice of the content of records of a county water commission); People v. Madison, 8 A.D.3d 956, 778 N.Y.S.2d 593 (4th Dept.2004) (taking judicial notice of criminal indictment, a "public record").

A court may take judicial notice of public records, including information "culled from" them, Siwek v. Mahoney, 39 N.Y.2d 159, 163 n. 2, 347 N.E.2d 599, 601 n. 2, 383 N.Y.S.2d 238, 240 n. 2 (1976)

, at "any stage of the litigation from motion practice to appeals," Associated General Contractors of America, New York State Chapter, Inc. v. Lapardo Bros. Excavating Contractors, Inc., 43 Misc.2d 825, 252 N.Y.S.2d 486 (Sup.Ct., Albany County 1964). Here, the Court takes judicial notice of the court file in Docket No. 2014 2014NY003458, which is pending before this Court. See People v. Perez, 195 Misc.2d 171, 757 N.Y.S.2d 711 (Crim.Ct., N.Y. County 2003) (a court may take judicial notice of its own records, and facts of which judicial notice may be taken need not be pled in an information).

While it is true that the court in Perez declined to take judicial notice of the content of the judicial records at issue there, this is only because the record of the underlying case had been sealed. That court was of the view that the sealing statute, CPL § 160.50

, would not permit this absent a motion by the prosecution for an unsealing order. Id. Here, however, unlike in Perez, the case that underlies the bail jumping prosecution is still open.

And, taking judicial notice of the record of that case, the Court concludes that: (1) defendant was arraigned on January 10, 2014, in Part AR–3A, on a misdemeanor complaint charging him with two counts of endangering the welfare of a child; (2) the Court released the defendant on his own recognizance; (3) on July 28, 2014, the defendant, having twice previously failed to appear, failed to appear in Part D and the Court issued a bench warrant, and; (4),...