The People of the State of New York, v. Michael Eguino, Defendant. (2026)

Defendant Michael Eguino moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument based upon the purported facial insufficiency of the sole count of the complaint, Penal Law ("PL") § 230.04 pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") § 100.40 (1); or in the alternative, inter alia, for an order precluding physical, statement and identification evidence, as well as evidence of his prior convictions and bad acts, or alternatively for Mapp/Huntley/Wade/Dunaway and Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux pre-trial hearings; and for an order directing the prosecution to comply with their CPL § 245.20 disclosures and granting defendant's reservation of right to file additional motions.

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court DENIES defendant's motion for dismissal of the accusatory instrument and further holds that:

The People's CoC and SoR dated June 3, 2025, were VALID and the prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 (1) (b) was TIMELY; and

Defendant's request for a pre-trial hearing pursuant to Mapp/Wade is DENIED; and

Defendant's request for a pre-trial hearing pursuant to Huntley/Dunaway and reservation of rights to make further motions to the extent provided by CPL § 255.20 (3), is GRANTED; and

The People are DIRECTED to comply with their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL § 245, including Brady/Vilardi disclosures; and

Defense counsel is DIRECTED to certify discovery compliance within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 (4) and 245.50 (2); and

There are NO unresolved issues that warrant a hearing on the underlying facts pursuant to People v Allard; and

Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux issues are REFERRED to the trial court.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2025, defendant Micheal Eguino was issued a Desk Appearance Ticket and directed to appear in Criminal Court, Bronx County, for the charged offense of PL § 230.04 (patronizing a person for prostitution in the third degree), a class A misdemeanor. On March 20, 2025, defendant was arraigned and released on his own recognizance.

The People filed and served their automatic disclosures, Certificate of Compliance ("CoC") and Statement of Readiness ("SoR") off-calendar on June 3, 2025. On June 2, 2025, the People filed a motion for a protective order which was opposed by defense counsel on October 14, 2025. At the appearance held on January 28, 2026, the People's motion was granted and defense counsel requested leave to file a motion challenging the validity of the People's CoC. The instant motion was filed on May 15, 2026. The docket is adjourned to November 9, 2026, for hearings and trial.

DISCUSSION

The Accusatory Instrument

In pertinent part, the first-party criminal complaint, sworn to on March 14, 2025, provides:

A.V. states that on or about and between February 25, 2025 at approximately 2:00 PM and February 27, 2025 at approximately 3:45 PM in front of 1990 East Gun Hill Road, County of the Bronx, State of New York, [ ]¹

Deponent states that, on and about February 25, 2025 in the vicinity of Five Islands Park, LeFevre Lane, New Rochelle, New York, defendant offered deponent a sum of United States currency, to wit one thousand ($1000.00) per month, to engage with him in Two (2) four (4) hour sessions per month.

Deponent further states that on February 27, 2025, at the above locations, a Bronx Motel, defendant specified to deponent that the aforementioned session for which the defendant offered to pay the deponent was for deponent to engage in sexual intercourse with defendant. Deponent further states that defendant offered deponent a sum of United States currency, to with one thousand ($1000.00) per month, to engage in one (1) eight (8) hour session a month if deponent did not have time to meet twice per month.

I. Applicable Standard for Facial Sufficiency Challenge

To meet the jurisdictional standard for facial sufficiency, an information "need only set forth facts that establish reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the charged offense" (see People v Smalls, 26 NY3d 1064, 1066 [2015]; see also CPL § 100.40 [1] [b]; § 70.10). The accusatory instrument must set forth non-hearsay facts of an evidentiary nature which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged (see People v Suber, 19 NY3d 247 [2012]; People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729 [1986]). It is well-settled that "mere conclusory allegations are insufficient [ ] and a purported information which fails to meet these requirements is fatally defective" (see People v Pamulo, 48 Misc 3d 1227 [A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51286 [U], **2 (Crim Ct, New York County 2015] [citations omitted] citing People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 136 [1987]).

It is also settled that a "valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution" (see People v Smalls, 26 NY3d 1064, 1066, [2015] [citing People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]); see also CPL §§ 170.30, 170.35]). The facial sufficiency challenge can be raised at any time- even after the case has been adjudicated or for the first time on appeal (see Dreyden at 103). Further, the People's trial readiness requires them to file a facially sufficient accusatory instrument prior to the expiration of their speedy trial time (see People v NS, 58 Misc 3d 613, 616, 2018 NY Slip Op 28014 [Crim Ct, Queens County 2018]).

Lastly, "[t]he prima facie case requirement does not necessitate that the information allege facts that would prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" (see People v Washington, 46 Misc 3d 1210 [A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50030 [U], ***3 [ Crim Ct, New York County 2015] [internal citations omitted]. Consequently, the accusatory instrument need only set forth factual allegations which "give an accused sufficient notice to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense" (see Id. [internal citations omitted]).

II. The Parties' Arguments

Defendant

The gravamen of defendant's motion is that the accusatory instrument is facially insufficient and should be dismissed because it fails to establish how defendant allegedly communicated his offers to the complainant, whether the complainant held herself out to be a prostitute, and whether defendant intended to patronize the complainant for prostitution "instead of exhibiting a sense of generosity towards her with the hope of developing a romantic relationship" (defense memorandum of law at 18-19).

Defendant further moves for an order directing the People to serve a Bill of Particulars and Brady material, and precluding statement, identification and physical evidence and evidence of prior convictions and bad acts, or, alternatively, granting pre-trial hearings pursuant to Mapp/Huntley/Wade/Dunaway and Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux (defense memorandum of law at 6-7, 18-21).

The People

The People assert that the criminal complaint materially conforms to the requirements of PL § 100.15 in form and substance (see People's affirmation at 6). Specifically, the prosecution avers that the accusatory instrument sets forth allegations that defendant solicited sex from the complainant on February 25 and February 27, 2025, each time offering the complainant $1,000 per month in exchange for multiple sessions of sexual intercourse (see People's affirmation at 4).

The People also maintain that the complaint gives the accused sufficient notice to prepare a defense and prevent him from being tried twice for the same offense (see People's affirmation at 7). Further, the People state that defense counsel's argument that the Information fails to allege that the complainant represented herself to the defendant as a prostitution is of no import where the statutory elements of PL § 230.04 do not require the complainant to be a prostitute (see People's affirmation at 8).

Additionally, the People aver that defendant's request for a Bill of Particulars is redundant because the prosecution has complied with its CPL § 245.20 disclosure mandate (see People's affirmation at 5). The People oppose defendant's request to preclude identification evidence where defense counsel conceded at defendant's arraignment that the parties are known to one another (see People's affirmation at 8 and ex 3, tr at 2, lines 23-24). The assigned ADA claims that defense counsel's request to suppress statements is moot because the prosecution did not serve CPL § 710.30 (1) (a) notice and, similarly, the prosecution asserts that no physical evidence was seized nor has defense counsel provided any facts to suggest so (see People's affirmation at 8, 9). Lastly, the People request that Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux issues be reserved for trial and they oppose defendant's reservation of the right to file additional motions as untimely (see People's affirmation at 9).

III. The Court's Analysis

Patronizing a Person for Prostitution in the Third Degree

Penal Law § 230.04 provides that "a person is guilty of Patronizing a Person for Prostitution in the Third Degree" when:

"(H)e or she pays a fee to another person pursuant to a prior understanding, as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in sexual conduct with him or her; or

he or she pays or agrees to pay a fee to another person pursuant to an understanding that in return therefor such person or a third person will engage in sexual conduct with him or her; or

he or she solicits or requests another person to engage in sexual conduct with him or her in return for a fee"

(see PL § 230.04; see also (CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 230.04, https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/230/230-04.pdf [last accessed September 8, 2026]).

Facial Sufficiency of the Count

The accusatory instrument asserts that defendant solicited sex from the complainant on two occasions. The first incident was on February 25, 2025, where, in the vicinity of Five Islands Park, LeFevre Lane, New Rochelle, defendant offered the complainant $1,000 per month to engage with defendant in two monthly four-hour sessions. The second incident allegedly occurred on February 27, 2025, where, in front of a motel located at 1990 East Gun Hill Road, Bronx, New York, defendant offered the complainant $1,000 per month to engage in one monthly eight-hour session in sexual intercourse if the complainant did not have time to meet twice monthly.

Penal Law § 230.04 provides, in part, that a person patronizes a person for prostitution where "he or she solicits or requests another person to engage in sexual conduct with him or her in return for a fee" (see PL § 230.04 [emphasis added]). Because the statute was amended, effective January 19, 2016, there is no statutory requirement that the person solicited purported to have been a prostitute when the offer was made because the amendment substituted the term "prostitute" for the term "person for prostitution" (id.).

Here, the criminal complaint sets forth allegations that defendant twice offered the complainant $1,000 to engage with him. Although the accusatory instrument does not qualify the February 25 offer as sexual in nature, the complaint provides that on February 27, defendant offered to pay the complainant "to engage in sexual intercourse with defendant." Moreover, the first-party complaint provides dates, locations and the specific terms for the engagement solicited (compare People v Moreno, 61 Misc 3d 128[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51359[U], *1 [App Term, 1st and 12th Dists] [accusatory instrument reinstated on appeal where information provided adequate notice to the defendant and invoked his protection against double jeopardy], with People v Sidarah, 41 Misc 3d 17, 18, 2013 NY Slip Op 23259 [App Term, 1st Dept] [the complaint was sparse and failed to even describe the person whom the defendant allegedly solicited).

Evaluating the four corners of the accusatory instrument and viewed in the light most favorable to the People, and rejecting an "overly restrictive or technical reading," the factual allegations at the pleading stage provide a reasonable basis to charge defendant with soliciting the complaining witness to engage in sexual conduct for payment (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]). Accordingly, this Court finds that pursuant to CPL §§ 100.40 (1) (c) and 100.15 (3), the count charging PL § 230.04 is facially sufficient.

Omnibus Relief

The Court finds the record at bar bereft of any allegations that physical evidence was recovered and defense counsel, who did not file a reply brief, did not rebut the People's contention. Additionally, at the arraignment, defense counsel conceded that defendant and the complainant are known to one another. Accordingly, defendant's request for Mapp/Wade pre-trial hearings is denied. However, defendant's request for pre-trial hearings pursuant to Huntley/Dunaway is granted. The Court also finds that the People's mandated CPL § 245.20 disclosures are sufficiently broad to obviate the need to compel the prosecution to provide defendant with a Bill of Particulars. Lastly, Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux are referred to the trial court.

The CPL § 30.30 Calculation

Generally, a criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument against a defendant, and it is settled law that the date on which the action is commenced is excluded from the CPL § 30.30 computation (see CPL § 1.20 [17]; see also People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). Accordingly, the People's speedy trial time began to accrue on March 21, 2025, the day following defendant's arraignment. The People validly declared readiness for trial by filing their CoC and SoR on June 3, 2025 (March 21, 2025 — June 3, 2025 = 74 days), within their statutorily allotted time (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]). Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the Court DENIES defendant's motion for dismissal of the count charging PL § 230.04; and further holds that:

Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is DENIED; and

The People's CoC and SoR dated June 3, 2025, were VALID and the prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 (1) (b) was TIMELY; and

Defendant's request for pre-trial hearings pursuant to Mapp/Wade is DENIED; and

Defendant's request for pre-trial hearings pursuant to Huntley/Dunaway, and the right to make further motions to the extent provided by CPL § 255.20 (3), is GRANTED; and

The People are DIRECTED to comply with their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL § 245, including Brady/Vilardi disclosures; and

Defense counsel is DIRECTED to certify discovery compliance within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 (4) and 245.50 (2); and

There are NO unresolved issues that warrant a hearing on the underlying facts pursuant to People v Allard; and

Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux issues are REFERRED to the trial court.

This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court.

Dated: September 21, 2026

Bronx, New York

HON. YADHIRA GONZÁLEZ-TAYLOR, A.J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   For privacy considerations, the complainant's name has been redacted pursuant to Rule 12.4 (f) of the Official New York Law Reports Style Manual.

Yadhira Gonzalez-Taylor, J.