PEOPLE v. TEJADA (2020)

Judgment of conviction (Erika M. Edwards, J., at plea; Alexander M. Tisch, J., at sentencing), rendered September 24, 2014, affirmed.

Since defendant waived prosecution 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 was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25). A loss prevention agent at a specified Rite Aid store alleged that on November 20, 2013 at 11:29 a.m., he observed defendant “remove” several items of merchandise from shelves, including “thirteen pairs of Sony and Craig earbuds,” and “conceal them inside a paper bag.” Given the number and nature of the items of merchandise at issue, and the manner in which they were concealed by defendant - “highly unusual and suspicious conduct for a shopper” (People v. Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 320 [1981]) - these allegations are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant exercised dominion and control over the merchandise inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner (see People v. Livingston, 150 AD3d 448 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1093 [2017]; People v. Bailey, 40 Misc 3d 126[A], 2013 NY Slip Op. 51021[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2013]), even in the absence of specific allegations as to defendant's movements or whereabouts in the store (see People v. Olivo, 52 NY2d at 318; People v. Riso, 39 Misc 3d 129[A], 2013 NY Slip Op. 50437[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 946 [2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.