THE PEOPLE, res, v. CHEIKH DIALLO, def-app

14-194. THE PEOPLE, res, v. CHEIKH DIALLO, def-app — Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of granting appellant leave to appeal as a poor person. Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., of the Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau (199 Water Street, 3rd Floor, NY, NY 10038, tel# 212 577-3688) is assigned as counsel for the appellant to prosecute the appeal and to serve without compensation. So Order — Judgment of conviction (Verna L. Saunders, J.), rendered September 13, 2013 affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

14-194. THE PEOPLE, res, v. CHEIKH DIALLO, def-app — Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of granting appellant leave to appeal as a poor person. Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., of the Legal Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Bureau (199 Water Street, 3rd Floor, NY, NY 10038, tel# 212 577-3688) is assigned as counsel for the appellant to prosecute the appeal and to serve without compensation. So Order — Judgment of conviction (Verna L. Saunders, J.), rendered September 13, 2013 affirmed.

In view of the defendant’s knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of the charged offense of unlicensed general vending (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §20-453). In this connection, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that at a specified time and street location, defendant, lacking the requisite license, “displayed” and “offer[ed] for sale” various items, including “rings, necklaces, other assorted jewelry, and scarves,” while “standing behind” a table upon which the items were displayed, with signs indicating that the items were for sale and the various prices. Such 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 (see People v. Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]; People v. Abdurraheem, 94 AD3d 569 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; People v. Zhou Yu, 4 Misc 3d 128[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50630[U] [App Term, lst Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 713 [2004]).

THE PEOPLE, res, v. CHEIKH DIALLO, def-app

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal