PEOPLE v. OLIVO (2022)

Judgment of conviction (Lyle E. Frank, J.), rendered April 18, 2016, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to be prosecuted by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument charging criminal trespass in the second degree was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant “knowingly enter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully in a dwelling” (Penal Law § 140.15[1]). The instrument stated that defendant was observed “in the lobby ․ beyond the vestibule” of a specified “apartment building where people reside,” a location that is beyond a posted “No Trespassing” sign; that defendant told the police that he did not live at the building and that he was there to “buy dope”; and that defendant was not “an invited guest in that [he] was unable to provide the identity of a resident of whom he was an invited guest” (see People v Barnes, 26 NY3d 986, 989-990 [2015]; People v Richardson, 49 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51579[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1111 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.