PEOPLE v. HILLARD (2018)

Judgment of conviction (Julio Rodriguez III, J.), rendered September 17, 2015, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument charging criminal contempt in the second degree was not jurisdictionally defective. The instrument alleges that defendant telephoned complainant Shalyn Torres and threatened to “slice” her “face”, as well as the faces of complainant's mother and grandmother, in violation of a valid order of protection directing defendant to refrain from communicating with or harassing complainant (see People v. Kaplan, 125 AD3d 465 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1203 [2015] ). Defendant's name on the signature line of the order of protection enables us to infer that he was aware of its contents (see People v. Inserra, 4 NY3d 30, 33 [2004] ).

The accusatory instrument was properly amended by Criminal Court to reflect the correct expiration date of the underlying order of protection (see CPL 170.35[1][a] ). Inasmuch as the order of protection signed by defendant was filed at arraignment, and the order specified the time period that the order was in effect as well as defendant's awareness of its contents, the amendment to the complaint did not change the theory of the case and did not surprise or prejudice defendant (see generally People v. Massaro, 8 AD3d 408 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 678 [2004] ).

Per Curiam.