*1
Defendant, WILLIAM ACEVEDO, charged in a two-count information with making graffiti (Penal Law §145.60 [2]) and possession of graffiti instruments (Penal Law §145.65), moves to dismiss both counts of the information pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §§170.30 and 170.35 on the ground that each count is facially insufficient. The sole issue presented is whether intent to damage, an element essential to both counts, is sufficiently plead by the allegations that defendant, using a brush dipped in glued, pasted a poster bill onto the wooden barrier of a construction site without the permission or authority of the custodian of the property. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.1 Defendant’s remaining motions are addressed below. The AllegationsThe present information provides that at a certain time and place an officer observed the defendant paste a poster bill onto the wooden barrier of a construction site with a brush dipped in glue. The factual allegations further provide that the custodian of the property did not give defendant permission or authority to paste the poster bill on the barrier.Facial SufficiencyA facially sufficient information must contain non-hearsay factual allegations providing reasonable cause to believe that the People can prove every element of the crime charged (CPL 100.40 [1] [b], [c]; People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1988]). Reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense “exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it” (CPL 70.10 [2]). A court reviewing for facial sufficiency must assume that the factual allegations contained in the information are true and must consider all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them (People v. Jackson, 18 NY3d 738, 741 [2012]; see CPL 100.40 [1] [c]). Further, “[s]o long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” (People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]).
