PEOPLE v. TOUNKARA (2022)

Judgment of conviction (Guy H. Mitchell, J.), rendered September 24, 2016, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [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 criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (see Penal Law § 170.20). The instrument recited that a police officer inside a specified subway station observed defendant “bending a MetroCard”; that the officer recovered the MetroCard from defendant's hand and observed that “it was bent in a location on the magnetic strip”; and that the officer knew from his training and experience that bending MetroCards in this way could “alter a card with zero balance so that it will provide a ride to the user” (see People v Mattocks, 12 NY3d 326, 330 [2009]; People v Cortes, 71 Misc 3d 141[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50546[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 991 [2021]). For purposes of our threshold, pleading-stage inquiry, defendant's knowledge of the forgery and intent to defraud could be inferred from his actions and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Johnson, 65 NY2d 556 [1985]; People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]; People v Lisboa, 70 Misc 3d 144[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50200[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 958 [2021]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur