PEOPLE v. PEREZ (2022)

Judgment of conviction (Beth Beller, J.), rendered January 8, 2020, affirmed.

The complaint was not jurisdictionally defective. It charged all the elements of the aggravated harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.30[1][a]), the sole offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. Indeed, defendant does not challenge the facial sufficiency of this charge.

Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the third-degree menacing charge contained in the accusatory instrument is unavailing, since he is not aggrieved by alleged defects in a charge of which he was not convicted (see People v Ruiz, 146 AD3d 417 [2017], lv denied 28 NY3d 1188 [2017]; People v Valentin, 66 Misc 3d 136[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50044[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 945 [2020]).

In any event, the only relief which the defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm the conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Because we do not find that dismissal would be appropriate, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur