PEOPLE v. NORALES (2011)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered February 11, 2009, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal trespass in the third degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge and a $150 fine, unanimously affirmed.

The misdemeanor information sufficiently alleged that defendant knowingly and unlawfully entered a nonpublic area of a building. There is no material distinction between the allegations of this information and those upheld in People v. Maresca (19 Misc.3d 133[A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 50663 [U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2008] ) and People v. Quinones (2002 N.Y. Slip Op 50091[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 680 [2002] ). The allegations plainly indicate that defendant entered a nonpublic lobby, and not merely a public vestibule. The factual allegations of an information are to be “given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading,” and are sufficient so long as they “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” (People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 353, 360 [2000] ).

The information was also sufficient to allege that defendant knowingly entered the lobby unlawfully. The allegations that defendant entered the lobby through a locked door, notwithstanding a conspicuous no-trespassing sign, and when questioned did not claim to be a resident or invited guest, satisfied the knowledge element of trespass (see e.g. People v. Flores, 21 Misc.3d 141 [A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 52371[U] [App Term 2d Dept 2008] ).