PEOPLE v. JANG (2005)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered March 23, 2004, convicting her of unauthorized practice of a profession (see Education Law § 6512[1] ), upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, Education Law § 6512(1) is not unconstitutionally vague.   The statute provides a person of ordinary intelligence with a reasonable opportunity to know the conduct that is proscribed and contains clear standards for enforcement (see County of Nassau v. Canavan, 1 N.Y.3d 134, 138, 770 N.Y.S.2d 277, 802 N.E.2d 616;  People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412, 418, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28;  People v. Foley, 94 N.Y.2d 668, 680, 709 N.Y.S.2d 467, 731 N.E.2d 123).

 The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was for release of the grand jury minutes, as she failed to demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for their production (see CPL 190.25[4][a];  210.30[3];  People v. Robinson, 98 N.Y.2d 755, 757, 751 N.Y.S.2d 843, 781 N.E.2d 908;  People v. Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d 765, 769, 676 N.Y.S.2d 106, 698 N.E.2d 935).

 By pleading guilty, the defendant waived her claim that the evidence submitted to the grand jury was insufficient to support the indictment (see People v. Kennington, 283 A.D.2d 658, 725 N.Y.S.2d 858;  People v. Caleca, 273 A.D.2d 476, 711 N.Y.S.2d 743).   In any event, we agree with the People that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish the elements of unauthorized practice of massage therapy (see Education Law §§ 6512[1];  7801;  People v. Gordon, 88 N.Y.2d 92, 95, 643 N.Y.S.2d 498, 666 N.E.2d 203;  People v. Galatro, 84 N.Y.2d 160, 163, 615 N.Y.S.2d 650, 639 N.E.2d 7;  People v. Mayer, 1 A.D.3d 461, 463, 768 N.Y.S.2d 222;  People v. Franklin, 305 A.D.2d 613, 760 N.Y.S.2d 511).

 The County Court also properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the grand jury was defective (see CPL 210.20[1][c];  210.35[2], [3] ) and impaired (see CPL 210.35[5] ).   The People's submission of the minutes and attendance sheet for August 14, 2003, confirmed that an adequate number of jurors were present and concurred in the indictment (see People v. Perry, 199 A.D.2d 889, 605 N.Y.S.2d 790).   Moreover, the prosecutor's conduct did not impair the integrity of the grand jury (see CPL 210.35[5];  People v. Adessa, 89 N.Y.2d 677, 684-686, 657 N.Y.S.2d 863, 680 N.E.2d 134;  People v. Huston, 88 N.Y.2d 400, 409, 646 N.Y.S.2d 69, 668 N.E.2d 1362;  People v. Montes, 5 A.D.3d 609, 772 N.Y.S.2d 856).   The indictment, as supplemented by the bill of particulars, also provided the defendant with sufficiently specific information as to the manner, time, and place of the crimes charged (see CPL 200.50[7][a];  People v. Jackson, 46 N.Y.2d 721, 723, 413 N.Y.S.2d 369, 385 N.E.2d 1296;  People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656;  People v. Dudley, 289 A.D.2d 503, 736 N.Y.S.2d 48;  People v. Pumarejo, 222 A.D.2d 616, 635 N.Y.S.2d 290).