By: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Cooper, JJ. 16-489. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res v. HAROLD BROWN, def-app — Judgment of conviction (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered April 18, 2016, reversed, on the law and the facts, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed. After a nonjury trial, the judicial hearing officer convicted defendant, who was charged solely with the unclassified misdemeanor of engine idling (see Administrative Code of City of NY §24-163), with disorderly conduct. Since disorderly conduct is not a lesser included offense of the charged administrative code violation, the court had no authority to consider and render judgment against defendant on this uncharged offense (see CPL 350.10[6]; 1.20[37]; People v. Ramirez, 56 Misc 3d 127[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50812[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017]; People v. Greene, 85 Misc 2d 890 [App Term, 1st Dept 1976]). In any event, the proof did not establish the offense of disorderly conduct. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
By: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Cooper, JJ. 18-141. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK res, v. DESTINI ALLEN, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Gerianne Abriano, J.), rendered October 6, 2017, affirmed. In view of defendant’s knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [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 criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law §220.03). Allegations that police recovered 5 bags containing crack/cocaine from the hinge of the door of the car that defendant was driving, and that the officer believed the substance to be crack/cocaine “based upon [his] prior training and experience as a police officer in the identification of drugs, [his] prior experience making drug arrests, and an observation of the substance[], which is characteristic” of crack/cocaine, provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (see People v. Smalls, 26 NY3d 1064 [2015]; People v. Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 231-232 [2009]; see also People v. Thiam, __ NY3d __, 2019 NY Slip Op 07712 [2019, DiFiore, Ch. J., concurring]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
