By: Higgitt, J.P., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ. 19-356. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. MIGUEL ROLDAN, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Mary L. Bejarano, J.), rendered October 29, 2018, affirmed. Since defendant waived 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, 521 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument charging defendant with multiple counts of petit larceny (see Penal Law §155.25) was not jurisdictionally defective. The instrument alleged that on five separate dates, deponent, a “Loss Prevention Agent” inside a specified Target store, observed defendant remove cell phones, place them inside his jacket pockets, and walk past the cash registers “and out of the door, past the point of payment,” without “permission or authority to remove said items.” These 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 [2014]). Contrary to defendant’s present contention, deponent’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator was based upon his personal observation of him, and was nonconclusory. Any further challenge to the identification of defendant was a matter to be raised at trial (see People v. Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004]; People v. Banaszek, ___ Misc 3d ___, 2021 NY Slip Op 50324[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; People v. Bennett, 70 Misc 3d 134[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50016[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
By: Higgitt J.P., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ. 19-365. SUSAN BECKFORD, plf-app, v. MILANO FURNITURE WAREHOUSE, INC., def-res — Amended judgment (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered December 5, 2019, affirmed, without costs. A judgment rendered in the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court will be sustained on appeal unless it is shown that “substantial justice” has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1807). Applying this narrow standard of review, and giving due deference to the trial court’s express findings of fact and negative assessment of plaintiff’s credibility (see Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]), we find no basis to disturb the judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff’s claim. The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the finding that the furniture sold By defendant was not defective, nor too large to fit through the doorway of plaintiff’s apartment. Nor was plaintiff entitled to a refund when she refused delivery of some of the items, given defendant’s disclosed no-return policy. Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit, or involve matters dehors the record. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
