People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 16 April 2018
• Docket Number: 17–1733
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Khalil WILLIAMS, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

59 Misc.3d 1215 (A)

106 N.Y.S.3d 550 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,

v.Khalil WILLIAMS, Defendant.

17–1733

City Court, New York.

Decided on April 16, 2018

Westchester County District Attorney, Mount Vernon Branch, David Hawkins, Esq., 116 Haven Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York 10553, Attorney for Defendant

Adrian N. Armstrong, J.

Defendant is charged by superceding misdemeanor information with one count of Assault in the Third Degree in violation of Penal Law § 120.00(01) ; one count of Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree in violation of Penal Law § 140.15 ; one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child in violation of Penal Law § 260.10(01) ; and one count of Harassment in the Second degree in violation of Penal Law § 240.26(01).

Defendant moves for an order 1) dismissing the charges on the ground that the accusatory instrument is facially insufficient; and 2) dismissing the charges on the ground that he has been denied his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) §§ 170.30 (1) (e), and 30.30 (1) (b).

It is alleged that on June 28, 2017 at approximately 10:30 p.m., at 126 South 7th Avenue, Apartment 80, in the City of Mount Vernon, County of Westchester and State of New York, the defendant entered into the residence of the victim, Nicole Duncan. Once inside the residence the defendant got into a verbal altercation with the victim. The defendant allegedly struck the victim in the face multiple times with his fists, causing the victim to fall to the ground. As a result of the defendant's action the victim called the police and was transported and treated at Montefiore Hospital for her injuries. The victim provided the Mount Vernon Police with both an oral and written statement regarding the incident.

This accusatory instrument, like any other, will be found facially sufficient where, in conformity with CPL §§ 100.15 and 100.40, it contains an accusatory part, designating the offense charged, CPL § 100.15(2), setting forth every element thereof, People v. Hall , 48 NY2d 927, 425 NYS2d 56 (1979), and a factual part containing "a statement of the complainant alleging facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges[,]" CPL § 100.15(3) based upon either the complainant's personal knowledge or upon information and belief. The factual part, taken together with any supporting depositions, must contain non-hearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged, People v. Moore , 5 NY3d 725, 800 NYS2d 49 (2005) ; People v. Thomas , 4 NY3d 143, 791 NYS2d 68 (2005) "provid[ing] reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense[.]" People v. Alejandro , 70 NY2d 133, 517 NYS2d 927 (1987) ; CPL § 100.40(4)(b). "Reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it." CPL § 70.20 The factual allegations in the accusatory instrument and supporting depositions should be viewed in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Martinez , 16 Misc 3d 1111(A), (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2007) ; People v. Delmonaco , 16 Misc 3d 526, 837 NYS2d 869 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2007) ; People v. Mendelson , 15 Misc 3d 925, 834 NYS2d 445 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2007) and should not be given an overly restrictive or technical reading ( People v. Casey , 95 NY2d 354, 717 NYS2d 88 [2000] ; People v. Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc. , 6 NY3d 404, 813 NYS2d 27 [2006] ). They must be sufficient to serve the purpose of providing the defendant with notice enabling him to prepare for trial and to distinguish the offense sufficiently to prevent him from again being tried for the same offense. People v. McDermott , 69 NY2d 889, 515 NYS2d 225 (1987) ; People v. McGuire , 5 NY2d 523, 186 NYS2d 250 (1959). Such a showing is not the same as the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial. People v. Swamp , 84 NY2d 725, 622 NYS2d 472 (1995) ; People v. Porter , 75 AD2d 901, 428 NYS2d 63 (2nd Dept. 1980).

In this action, the superceding misdemeanor information as well as the two supporting depositions that were signed by the victim, alleges that on June 28, 2017 at approximately 10:30 p.m., at 126 South 7th Avenue, Apartment 80, in the City of Mount Vernon, County of Westchester and State of New York, the defendant entered into the residence of the victim, Nicole Duncan, without her permission. Once inside the residence the defendant got into a verbal altercation with the victim and with intent to annoy, alarm or harass her, the defendant allegedly struck the victim in the face multiple times with his fists, causing her bruising, swelling and soreness to her head, elbow and forearm, resulting in substantial pain. Furthermore, it is alleged that the aforementioned actions took place in front of three children all under the age of 17.

Penal Law § 120.00(1) provides: "A person is guilty of Assault in the Third Degree when: 1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or a third person." "Physical injury" is defined in Penal Law § 10.00(9) as "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain." To survive this challenge to its facial sufficiency, this accusatory instrument must establish that the defendant intended to cause physical injury and caused such injury. This Court finds that the factual allegations contained in the instant information suffice to establish a prima facie case of assault in the third degree and in particular satisfy the "physical injury" element of that offense. The information recites that defendant punched and kicked the victim in the face multiple times, causing substantial pain, swelling, and bleeding, all of which required medical attention. Accepting these allegations as true, a jury could certainly infer that the victim felt substantial pain (see People v. Rojas , 61 NY2d 726, 727 [1984] ).

A person is guilty of Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree when "he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling." PL § 140.15(1). The victim stated in her supporting depositions that the defendant entered her apartment without her consent, and when she told him to leave he proceeded to assault her. As such, the facts alleged in support of the charge of Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree provide reasonable cause to believe that defendant "knowingly enter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully in a dwelling.

A person is guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child when "he knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old" ( Penal Law § 260.10 [1 ] ). "[A] defendant must simply be aware that the conduct may likely result in harm to a child" ( People v. Johnson , 95 NY2d 368, 372 [2000] ). The factual portion of the accusatory instrument involved herein allege that all of defendant's actions in striking the victim took place in front of the three children who are less than 17 years old. The Court finds that these facts tend to show that defendant's conduct was likely to have an injurious effect on the children's mental or moral welfare.

A person is guilty of Harassment in the Second Degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same. The court notes, that, in light of the above conclusion that the information sufficiently alleges the "physical injury" element of Assault in the Third Degree, this count is facially sufficient as to the element, as well.

This Court finds that the factual allegations in the accusatory instrument and supporting depositions, viewed in a light most favorable to the People ( People v. Martinez , 16 Misc 3d 1111(A), (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2007) ; People v. Delmonaco , 16 Misc 3d 526, 837 NYS2d 869 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2007) ; People v. Mendelson , 15 Misc 3d 925, 834 NYS2d 445 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2007), sets forth every element of the charges brought against him, and is sufficient to serve the purpose of providing the defendant with notice enabling him to prepare for trial and to...