By: Edmead, P.J., Higgitt, Brigantti, JJ. 17-041. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. FABIAN ORTIZ, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered June 29, 2016, 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]). The instrument, including the certified abstract of defendant’s driving record and certified proofs of mailing of prior notices of suspension of defendant’s driver’s license, was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant operated a motor vehicle on February 19, 2015, “while knowing or having reason to know” that his license was suspended (Vehicle and Traffic Law §511[1][a]; see People v. Compres, 59 Misc 3d 140[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50617[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1115 [2018]; People v. Gerado, 55 Misc 3d 127[A}, 2017 NY Slip Op 50344[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1079 [2017]). Any alleged hearsay defect in the accusatory instrument was waived by defendant’s guilty plea (see People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 362-364 [2000]). Defendant’s present claim that he did not in fact receive the summonses or notices of suspension was a matter to be raised at trial. “Having pleaded guilty to [aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree] on a jurisdictionally valid accusatory instrument, defendant conceded every element of the offense” (People v. Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004]). All concur. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
By: Edmead, P.J., Higgitt, Brigantti, JJ. 17-218. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. ROMAINE MAZYCK, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Lyle E. Frank, J.), rendered December 12, 2016, affirmed. Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of petit larceny (see Penal Law §155.25). The instrument recited that a few minutes after complainant accidently left her laptop in a particular room at a specified location, video surveillance showed defendant, an employee at the location, entering and exiting that then-unoccupied room, and then entering the employee locker room with “an outline of a laptop…clearly visible under his shirt.” Contrary to defendant’s present contention, these allegations and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant “exercised dominion and control over the property for a period of time, however temporary, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the owner’s continued rights,” thereby satisfying the “taking” element of the offense (People v. Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 118 [1986]; see People v. Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 317-318 [1981]; People v. Livingston, 150 AD3d 448 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1093 [2017]). All concur. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
