The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Miguel Fernandez, Appellant. (2026)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) in an accusatory instrument, executed by a police officer, which alleged that the officer was informed by the complainant, a loss prevention employee at a Home Depot store, that he had reviewed video surveillance of the front of Home Depot, recorded on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 between 3:32 p.m. and 3:38 p.m., which "depicts" defendant removing eight flush mount 12 inch white ceiling lights from store shelves, putting them in a shopping cart, and proceeding to walk past all final points of sale with the items in the cart and walking out of the store without paying for the items. The officer was also informed by the complainant that, as a loss prevention employee at Home Depot, he is the legal custodian of these items and that defendant did not have permission or authority to take, remove, use or otherwise exercise authority or control over those items without paying for them. Additionally, the accusatory instrument alleged that the officer had reviewed the video surveillance and that he was informed by another police officer that defendant admitted, in sum and substance, "I took stuff on Tuesday." On June 13, 2022, after waiving prosecution by information, defendant pleaded guilty (Marty Lentz, J.) to petit larceny and was sentenced to time served. On appeal, defendant contends that the accusatory instrument is jurisdictionally defective because it failed to allege facts establishing his identity as the perpetrator of the offense.

"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, and which 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]; People v Willis, 44 NY3d 14, 20-21 [2025]; 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).

Contrary to defendant's contention, an allegation in an accusatory instrument that the complainant viewed a surveillance video which "depicts" defendant shoplifting is not conclusory, and any question as to how the complainant recognized defendant is a matter to be raised at trial and does not affect the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument (see People v Brower, 81 Misc 3d 4, 6 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023] [finding that any question as to the source of the deponent's knowledge pertaining to how the deponent recognized the defendant was a matter to be raised at trial]; People v Jones, 77 Misc 3d 5, 10 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; People v Singleton, 73 Misc 3d 149[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50011[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]; see generally People v Drelich, 32 NY3d 1032, 1033 [2018]; Konieczny, 2 NY3d at 575; Casey, 95 NY2d at 360). Consequently, the accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective (see Brower, 81 Misc 3d at 7).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: August 21, 2026