The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ricardo Ali, Appellant. (2026)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

On April 14, 2022, after the Criminal Court (Diego A. Freire, J.) dismissed the one felony charge of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a] [i]), and after defendant waived prosecution by information, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]) in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument which had also charged him with driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]), common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1] [a]), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [2] [a]), and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509 [1]). On May 31, 2022, the court (Edwin I. Novillo, J.) imposed sentence.

"A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution" (People v Case, 42 NY2d 98, 99 [1977]; see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]; People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]). Thus, the facial insufficiency of an accusatory instrument constitutes a jurisdictional defect which is not forfeited by a defendant's guilty plea (see People v Thiam, 34 NY3d 1040 [2019]; Dreyden, 15 NY3d at 103; People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 573 [2004]). Since defendant expressly waived the right to be prosecuted by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be evaluated under the standards that govern a misdemeanor complaint, which can be based upon hearsay, is sufficient on its face when it alleges facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge (see CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [4] [a]) and provides reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged (see CPL 100.40 [4] [b]; Dumay, 23 NY3d at 524; People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). While the law does not require that the accusatory instrument contain the most precise words or phrases most clearly expressing the charges, the offense and factual bases therefor must be sufficiently alleged (see Konieczny, 2 NY3d at 575). "So long as the factual allegations of an [accusatory instrument] give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]; see Konieczny, 2 NY3d at 575). Where, as here, a defendant pleads guilty to one or more of the counts actually charged in a multi-count accusatory instrument, and, on appeal, raises a jurisdictional challenge, he or she need not challenge the facial sufficiency of all the counts contained in the accusatory instrument at the time the defendant entered the guilty plea; rather, he or she need only challenge the facial sufficiency of the actual count or counts to which he or she pleaded guilty (see People v Mason, 62 Misc 3d 75 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; see also Dumay, 23 NY3d 518).

Here, in the accusatory instrument, the deponent police officer stated that, on or about January 28, 2022, between 8:38 p.m. and 8:45 p.m., he responded to a radio run for a vehicle collision in front of 145-38 Linden Boulevard, in Queens County. He further stated that he was informed by an eyewitness that she observed defendant "driving a black Nissan sedan at a high rate of speed and collide with her vehicle." Additionally, the deponent officer stated that he was present when an intoxilyzer exam was administered to defendant and that the intoxilyzer indicated that "defendant had a 0.146 of one percentum or more by weight of alcohol in his blood."

These factual allegations were sufficient to establish both elements of driving while intoxicated per se, i.e., operation — through an eyewitness's observation — and per se intoxication — through the administration of an intoxilyzer exam (see People v Suber, 19 NY3d 247, 254 [2012]; People v Chaitram, 85 Misc 3d 141[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50631[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2025]; People v Green, 59 Misc 3d 134[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50490[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th, & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; People v Martinez, 45 Misc 3d 134[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51725[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Contrary to defendant's contention that there were only conclusory facts alleged in the accusatory instrument identifying him as the perpetrator, defendant's identification was based upon the eyewitness's personal observation of him driving the vehicle which had collided with hers (see People v Banaszek, 71 Misc 3d 132[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50324[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; People v Thomas, 47 Misc 3d 132[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50464[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]; People v Vonancken, 27 Misc 3d 132[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50695[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; People v Bridgelal, 9 Misc 3d 127[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51473[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]). Any further challenge to the identification of defendant was a matter to be raised as an evidentiary defense and does not affect the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument (see People v Drelich, 32 NY3d 1032, 1033 [2018]; Casey, 95 NY2d at 360; Banaszek, 2021 NY Slip Op 50324[U]). Additionally, the accusatory instrument established that defendant had .08 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in his blood as shown by an intoxilyzer exam (see People v Contreras-Santana, 54 Misc 3d 129[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51822[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; Martinez, 2014 NY Slip Op 51725[U]). Consequently, as the accusatory instrument alleged facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge of driving while intoxicated per se (see CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [4] [a]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]) and provided reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed this offense (see CPL 100.40 [4] [b]), the charge was facially sufficient (see Contreras-Santana, 2016 NY Slip Op 51822[U]; Thomas, 2015 NY Slip Op 50464[U]; Martinez, 2014 NY Slip Op 51725[U]; People v Parris, 36 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51621[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

BUGGS, J.P., MUNDY and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: February 20, 2026