People v. Oliveros (Forrest)

People v Oliveros (2020 NY Slip Op 51161(U)) [*1] People v Oliveros (Forrest) 2020 NY Slip Op 51161(U) [69 Misc 3d 130(A)] Decided on October 5, 2020 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on October 5, 2020 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Cooper, Higgitt, JJ. 570181/17 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, against Forrest Oliveros, Defendant-Appellant. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerianne Abriano, J.), rendered March 8, 2017, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence. Per Curiam. Judgment of conviction (Gerianne Abriano, J.), rendered March 8, 2017, affirmed. The superseding information charging criminal trespass in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.15[1]) was jurisdictionally valid because it contained "nonconclusory factual allegations that, if assumed to be true, address[ed] each element of the crime charged, thereby affording reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed that offense" (People v Middleton, 35 NY3d 952, 954 [2020], quoting People v Matthew P., 26 NY3d 332, 335—336 [2015]). The information recited that, while complainant was out of state, defendant obtained the key to complainant's "locked hotel/dorm room" located at 244 West 99th Street from the hotel's front desk and then entered and invited others into the hotel/dorm room without "permission or authority to enter or remain" from complainant, the "custodian" of the room. These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in complainant's room when he was not licensed or privileged to do so (see Penal Law § 140.00[5]; People v Graves, 76 NY2d 16, 20 [1990]; People v Leonardo, 59 Misc 3d 137[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50561[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1150 [2018]). We also reject defendant's contention that the instrument fails to provide sufficient notification of the dates of the alleged offenses. Giving the instrument "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), that the instrument sufficiently alleges that the trespass occurred "on multiple occasions" between "May 26, 2016 and June 19, 2016" while complainant "was out of state on a school break," a period not so lengthy that it was impossible for defendant to answer the charges and to prepare an adequate [*2]defense (see People v Morris, 61 NY2d 290, 295-296 [1984]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. I concur I concur I concur Decision Date: October 5, 2020