PEOPLE v. GOMEZ (2021)

Judgment of conviction (Margaret W. Martin, J.), rendered March 26, 2019, affirmed.

Since defendant waived the right to be prosecuted by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required 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 aggravated driving while intoxicated per se (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2-a][a]), and in particular, satisfied the operation element of the offense. An eyewitness observed defendant in the driver's seat of the minivan immediately after it crashed into a parked car; the vehicle was stopped in the middle of the road, with damage to its front left bumper; a second damaged vehicle was next to defendant's vehicle; and defendant was standing next to his vehicle. These allegations support an inference that defendant was the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident (see People v Esposito, 33 NY3d 1016, 1017 [2019]; People v Dunster, 146 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 997 [2017]; People v Bedard, 64 Misc 3d 144[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51295[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1126 [2020]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur