Opinion
570104/15
04-13-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonathan Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered December 18, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered December 18, 2014, affirmed.
Since defendant did not waive prosecution by information, we assess the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument based upon the standard applicable to an information (see People v Hatton, 26 N.Y.3d 364, 368 [2015]). So viewed, the information charging harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26[3]) 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 Matthew P., 26 N.Y.3d 332, 335-336 [2015]; see People v Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225, 228-229 [2009]). The information recited that between June 14, 2014 and August 18, 2014, defendant repeatedly called the complainant's cell phone (at least 29 times), left voice messages and emailed her, despite being informed by the complainant "to refrain from contacting her in any manner." The information further alleged that on August 18, 2014, defendant created an Instagram account and posted several partially naked photos of complainant while "tagg[ing]" several of her co-workers in the Instagram post. These factual allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant intentionally engaged in a course of conduct or repeatedly committed acts over a period of time that evidenced a continuity of purpose which alarmed or seriously annoyed the complainant and which served no legitimate purpose (see Penal Law § 240.26[3]; Matter of Diana A. v Kareem E., 177 A.D.3d 528, 529 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 911 [2020]; People v Pugach, 179 Misc.2d 819 [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 928 [1999]).
Any alleged hearsay defect in the information was waived by defendant's guilty plea (see People v Keizer, 100 N.Y.2d 114, 122-123 [2003]; People v Drayton, 66 Misc.3d 136 [A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50025[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]), including the typographical error in the date that the supporting deposition was executed. In any event, that error was nonjurisdictional (see People v Johnson-McLean, 71 Misc.3d 31 [App Term, 1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 966 [2021]).
All concur
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.