Court Opinion

ID: 4316474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-28 14:37:02.0117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:01:33.595932
License: Public Domain

<partyblock> 

<br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Appellant, 

<br><br>against<br><br>Leobardo Moreno, Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br> 

 

 

 

<p>The People appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Bianka Perez, J.), dated February 1, 2018, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument.</p> 

 

 

 

 

<p>Per Curiam.</p> 

<p>Order (Bianka Perez, J.), dated February 1, 2018, reversed, on the law, motion denied, accusatory instrument reinstated and matter remitted to Criminal Court for further proceedings. </p> 

<p>The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the misdemeanor information "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (<i>People v Casey</i>, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (<a href="../2009/2009_04739.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Davis</i>, 13 NY3d 17</a>, 31 [2009]) that it was legally sufficient to charge defendant with "solicit[ing] ... another person to engage in sexual conduct with him in return for a fee" (Penal Law  230.02[1][c], 230.04). The instrument recites that on May 19, 2017 at 10:38 p.m., on a specified street corner in Bronx County, defendant approached an undercover police officer and "asked to have sexual intercourse with [said officer] in exchange for a sum of United States currency," and defendant stated, in sum and substance, "I want everything for twenty dollars" (<i>see People v Ismailgeci</i>, 60 Misc 3d 129[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50956[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], <i>lv denied </i>__ NY3d __ [2018], 2018 NY Slip Op 98405 [2018];<a href="../2016/2016_26247.htm" target="_blank"><i> People v Menner</i>, 53 Misc. 3d 52</a>, 54-55 [2016], <i>lv denied </i>28 NY3d 1029 [2016]; <a href="../2017/2017_27417.htm" target="_blank"><i>cf. People v Drelich, </i>58 Misc 3d 81</a> [2017],<i> lv granted </i>31 NY3d 1013 [2018]). These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes "since they provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy" (<a href="../2014/2014_02103.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Kasse</i>, 22 NY3d 1142</a>, 1143 [2014]).  </p> 

<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p> 

<br>I concur I concur I concur 

<br>Decision Date: September 26, 2018 

 

 

<br><br><div align="center"> 

<form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"> 

<input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"> 

</form> 

</div> 

 

 

</partyblock>