Opinion
570859/07.
Decided March 3, 2010.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered October l, 2007, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered October 1, 2007, affirmed.
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, J.
We find unavailing defendant's present challenge to the facial sufficiency of the underlying information. "[G]iven a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" ( People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360), the complainant's sworn allegations concerning the series of unwanted telephone calls and letters that she received from defendant following the expiration of the order of protection issued on her behalf on account of defendant's prior course of threatening conduct, were sufficient to establish prima facie defendant's commission of aggravated harassment in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 240.30; see generally People v Johnson, 208 AD2d 1051, lv denied 85 NY2d 910) and stalking in the third and fourth degrees ( see Penal Law §§ 120.50, 120.45; see generally People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412), the offenses with which defendant was charged. Nor is the information rendered jurisdictionally infirm by any misstatement in its preamble as to the precise date(s) of occurrence of the offenses charged, particularly since the telephone harassment and stalking statutes set forth continuing crimes ( see People v Shack, 86 NY2d 529, 539-541) and the information otherwise accurately described the chronology of events leading to defendant's arrest.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.