PEOPLE v. VELAZQUEZ (2020)

Judgment of conviction (Myrna Socorro, J.), rendered April 20, 2017 affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 521 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument charging defendant with possessing a shotgun without the requisite permit/certificate of registration (see Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 10-303, 10-304) was jurisdictionally valid. Allegations that police recovered a “Black Sears and Roebuck 20 gauge shotgun” from the trunk of defendant's vehicle, and that defendant did not have a permit or certificate of registration for said shotgun were sufficient for pleading purposes, since they provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (see People v. Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142 [2014]).

People v. Figueroa (55 Misc 3d 108 [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1126 [2017]), which involved the grant of defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument for failure to satisfy the non-hearsay requirement of CPL 100.40(1)(c), is distinguishable. Here, defendant's guilty plea waived any hearsay defect in the accusatory instrument (see People v. Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 121-123 [2003]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the fine.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.