The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael Adams, Defendant-Appellant. (2024)

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Nicholas J. Iacovetta, J.), rendered September 23, 2019, affirmed.

Since defendant waived the right to be prosecuted by information, the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the reasonable cause standard applicable to a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 524 [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 the charged offense of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation (see Penal Law § 121.11[a]). The instrument recited that on July 12, 2019, defendant "grabbed [the victim] about the neck with his left hand, applied pressure, and then shoved [the victim] by the neck into a nearby chair," and that this conduct by defendant caused the victim to suffer "substantial pain and redness" to his neck. These factual allegations and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them were sufficient, for pleading purposes, to establish that defendant applied pressure on the victim's neck with the intent to impede his normal breathing (see Matter of Kenrick C., 143 AD3d 600 [2016]; People v Peterson, 118 AD3d 1151, 1154 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1087 [2014]; see also People v Briggs, 129 AD3d 1201, 1204 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1038 [2015]).

In any event, the only relief that defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument rather than vacatur of the plea, and he expressly requests this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by reinstating the charges (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 385 n [2015]), dismissal is not warranted and we therefore affirm on this basis as well.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: November 13, 2024