13-411. THE PEOPLE, res, v. CHANELLE WILKERSON, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Linda Poust-Lopez, J.), rendered November 2, 2012, affirmed.
We find unavailing defendant’s challenge to the facial sufficiency of the underlying accusatory instrument. Defendant knowingly waived her right to prosecution by information (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]), and the accusatory instrument described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of petit larceny (see Penal Law §155.25) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Penal Law §165.40). In this connection, the factual portion of the misdemeanor complaint and supporting deposition alleged, inter alia, that a police officer observed defendant, who was operating a cash register inside of a Pathmark supermarket, remove “a sum of United States currency from said register” and place the money “inside of her smock pocket.” The accusatory instrument further alleged that a security officer at Pathmark, who was the “lawful custodian of said location, merchandise and currency,” informed the officer that defendant “did not have permission or authority to take, remove or exercise control over said currency which defendant… placed inside of her smock pocket.” No additional evidentiary details were required for the People’s pleading to provide “adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke [her] protection against double jeopardy” (People v. Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]). Defendant’s purported “good-faith claim of right” is a defense to be raised at trial, rather than an exception that must be pleaded by the People (see People v. Zona, 14 NY3d 488, 492-493 [2010]; see also People v. Torres, 47 Misc 3d 24, 25-26 [2015]).
