PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ (2021)

Judgment of conviction (Lyle E. Frank, J.), rendered February 29, 2016, 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 complaint charging reckless driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212) was jurisdictionally valid. The instrument recited that a police officer observed defendant, at a specified location at 4:20 a.m., drive his vehicle through two red lights while talking on a cell phone and while there were “numerous other vehicles on the road.” These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes, since they provided reasonable cause to believe that defendant “unreasonably endanger[ed] users of the public highway” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212; see People v Grogan, 260 NY 138, 144 [1932]; People v Goldblatt, 98 AD3d 817 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 932 [2012]; People v Medard, 63 Misc 3d 165[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50943[U][App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 934 [2019]), and provided sufficient detail to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (see People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]).

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.