PEOPLE v. GATTO (2021)

Judgment of conviction (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered December 19, 2018, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of the right to 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 instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.15[1]). The instrument recited that at 9:18 a.m. on November 27, 2018, defendant entered complainant's room at a specified location, while complainant was “not in the room” and without complainant's “permission or authority to enter.” These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in complainant's room when she was not licensed or privileged to do so (see Penal Law § 140.00[5]; People v Graves, 76 NY2d 16, 20 [1990]; People v Oliveros, 69 Misc 3d 130[A] [2020]; 2020 NY Slip Op 51161[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]).

Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the burglary charge contained in the felony complaint, which the court dismissed as part of defendant's plea, is unavailing, since defendant is not aggrieved by alleged defects in felony charges that were dismissed on the People's motion as part of the plea (see CPL 470.15[1]; People v Ruiz, 146 AD3d 417 [2017], lv denied 28 NY3d 1188 [2017]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.