PEOPLE v. SHARIPOV (2020)

Judgment of conviction (Barbara F. Newman, J.H.O.), rendered December 13, 2017, affirmed.

The information was jurisdictionally valid because it contained nonconclusory factual allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof, and supplied defendant with sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy (see People v. Middleton, 35 NY3d 952, 954 [2020]; People v. Wheeler, 34 NY3d 1134, 1135 [2020]). The information recited that on October 12, 2017, at about 4:34 p.m., defendant was observed on Sixth Avenue and 48th Street operating a pedicab on the “public roadway with [a] missing front reflector” and that “when stopped,” the officer determined that the pedicab was “not registered” because the registration had expired on November 30, 2016. These allegations were “sufficiently evidentiary in character” (People v. Allen, 92 NY2d 378, 385 [1998]) to establish prima facie defendant's operation of a pedicab with an expired registration in violation of New York City Administrative Code § 20-255. The misnomer in describing the offense in the accusatory instrument as a violation of subdivision (a)(2) of Administrative Code § 20-255 rather than subdivision (a)(3) was non-jurisdictional, since the instrument sufficiently advised defendant of the facts relied upon to constitute the alleged violation (see People v. Love, 306 NY 18, 23 [1953]; People v. Husain, 56 Misc 3d 73 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 950 [2017]) and defendant waived any objection to this defect by pleading guilty (see People v. Rodriguez, 97 AD3d 246 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1028 [2012]; People v. Williams, 67 Misc 3d 145[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50804[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2020]; see also People v. Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 572 [2004]).

The record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. As part of a global resolution of three separate criminal prosecutions arising from allegations that defendant operated pedicabs without a license or valid registration, defendant, after conferring with counsel, pleaded guilty to a single count of violating Public Health Law § 229, a violation, in return for a negotiated sentence of a $50 fine. The court advised defendant that by pleading guilty he was giving up the right to a trial, to remain silent, and to confront witnesses. Thus, the record as a whole establishes that defendant intelligently and understandingly waived his constitutional rights (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]; People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 383 [2015]), and entered knowing and voluntary guilty plea. Furthermore, as defendant pleaded guilty to an uncharged lesser offense, no factual basis for the plea was necessary (see People v. Moore, 71 NY2d 1002, 1006 [1988]).

In any event, the only relief that defendant requests is dismissal of the information, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see e.g. People v. Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.