PEOPLE v. PINKNEY (2020)

Judgment of conviction (Kate Paek, J.), rendered January 29, 2016, reversed, and the accusatory instrument dismissed.

The accusatory instrument charging defendant with criminal trespass in the third degree (see Penal Law § 140.10[a]) was facially insufficient, since it failed to allege facts establishing that the building at issue was "fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders" (Penal Law § 140.10[a]); see People v Moore, 5 NY3d 725, 727 [2005]). The unadorned description of the area in which defendant is said to have trespassed as a building enclosed with "walls, a roof, and doorway" in a manner "designed to exclude intruders" served merely to track the general language of the statute, without adding "facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge" (CPL 100.15.[3]; see People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]; People v O'Connor, 22 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50395[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists, 2009]; People v Courtney, 15 Misc 3d 140[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51000[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 922 [2007]).

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.