The People of the State of New York v. Charles S. Morris (2026)

Defendant stands before this court charged with Assault in the 3rd degree, a class "A" misdemeanor, in violation of Penal Law § 120.00(1). The charge stems from an incident that allegedly took place on April 1, 2026 in the City of Beacon, New York. On September 11, 2026 the defendant filed a Notice of Omnibus Motion and Attorney Affirmation seeking various forms of relief. The People filed an Affirmation in Response to the defendant's motion on October 9, 2026. The Court now considers the matter fully submitted. The Court has reviewed the defendant's moving papers and accompanying affidavit, the Affirmation in Response filed by the People, and the relevant statutes and case law and after a careful review, the Court's determination is set forth below.

FACIAL INSUFFICIENCY

For an accusatory instrument to constitute a valid, facially sufficient information, several requirements must be met. Specifically, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 100.40(1) an information is facially sufficient when:

a) It substantially conforms to the requirements prescribed in 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 People have the burden to establish that the above referenced requirements are met and that an accusatory instrument is facially sufficient (People v. Jones, 9 NY3d 259 [2007]).

Facial sufficiency is a non-waivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a prosecution and a defect in the accusatory requires dismissal (People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]). The court's review of the factual allegations is confined to the four corners of the instrument itself and any supporting depositions (People v. Thomas, 4 NY3d 143 [2005]). However, when reviewing an accusatory instrument for facial sufficiency the court must view the facts in a light most favorable to the prosecution (People v. Vonancken, 27 Misc 3d 132(A) [App. Term 2d Dept. 2010]). Furthermore, the court should not hold the prosecution to the high threshold of the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard necessary at trial (People v. Henderson, 92 NY2d 677 [1999]). Additionally, "so long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v. Konieczny, 2 NYS3d 569 [2000]).

The defendant alleges that the accusatory instrument charging Assault in the 3rd degree is insufficient as it does not articulate "physical injury" or "substantial pain" as required by the statute. Pursuant to Penal Law § 120.00(1), [a] person is guilty of assault in the 3rd degree when with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes injury to such person or to a third person. The Penal Law defines "physical injury" as "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain." In defining "physical injury," the Court of Appeals has held that "of course, 'substantial pain' cannot be defined precisely, but it can be said that it is more than slight or trivial pain. Pain need not, however, be severe or intense to be substantial" (People v. Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]). In addition, the "[l]egislature did not intend a wholly subjective criterion to govern. This is so both because it abjured the Model Penal Code's definition (section 210.0, subd [2], 'physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition'), and because the Revisors' notes state that 'petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like delivered out of hostility, meanness and similar motives' are not within the definition (Temporary Commission on Revision of the Penal Law and Criminal Code, Proposed Penal Law, p 330)" (In re Philip A., 49 NY2d 198, 200 [1980]). "Physical injury may not be established where the victim suffers only small cuts and abrasions that do not require stitches, where the victim does not provide evidence of duration of pain nor other objective indicia of substantial pain, or where the victim testifies only to minimal soreness and swelling or bruising. However, more substantial bruising, swelling, and lacerations have been sufficient" (People v. McDowell, 938 N.Y.S.2d 229 [Lockport City Court, 2011] internal citations omitted).

In the instant matter, the factual part of the accusatory states in relevant part that the defendant did knowingly and intentionally strike the victim in the face with an open hand while engaged in a domestic dispute and the defendant's actions caused redness and pain to the right side of the complainant's face. The complainant's supporting deposition alleges that during a verbal dispute with the defendant, the defendant became physical and "struck me in the right side of my face with an open hand and [t]he strike caused pain and redness to the right side of my face." Beyond that, there is no other information provided in the complaint or deposition relative to either the objective or subjective level of "pain" the complaining witness experienced or that she suffered any physical injury. Therefore, the Court is left with the only description of the defendant's alleged conduct as causing redness to the complainant's face.

"When the accusatory instrument fails to provide any factual allegations on which the Court could identify as supporting the aspects employed in Chiddick to establish the presence of substantial pain, that element has not been sufficiently pled" (McDowell, Id.). The Court finds that the People have failed to meet their burden in establishing that the accusatory instrument is facially sufficient. The alleged injuries do not go beyond the "petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like" described by the Court of Appeals in Chiddick. In reviewing the complaint and supporting deposition as a whole, the Court finds that the allegations are insufficient as to the charge of Assault in the 3rd degree in violation of Penal Law § 120.00(1).

In view of the foregoing, the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on facial insufficiency grounds is GRANTED.

The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of this court.

Dated: October 21, 2026

Beacon, New York

GREGORY J. JOHNSTON

CITY COURT JUDGE

Gregory J. Johnston, J.