By: Brigantti, J.P., Hagler, Michael, JJ. 15-260. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. PAUL WILLIAMS, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered May 13, 2014, affirmed. Defendant’s request for vacatur of his conviction of aggravated harassment in the second degree on the basis that Penal Law §240.30(1)(a) has been declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals (see People v. Golb, 23 NY3d 455, 467-468 [2014], cert denied 574 US 1079 [2015]), is unpreserved (see People v. Scott, 126 AD3d 645 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1171 [2015]; see also People v. Ward, 136 AD3d 504 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 938 [2016]). The interest of justice would not be served by relieving defendant, who had a history of domestic violence against the victim, of this conviction, particularly since his egregious conduct went far beyond a mere communication with intent to annoy, which was the primary concern of the Court of Appeals when it invalidated the statute in People v. Golb, supra (see People v. Irizarry, 135 AD3d 641, 642 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 931 [2016]). Nor was the information jurisdictionally defective. Allegations that defendant called the victim and stated “I’m going to have your head,” “I will cut you and make you bleed,” and “if I can’t get you, I will get your sister and your mother,” were sufficient at the pleading stage to support a finding that defendant made a “genuine threat[]” to physically harm complainant (People v. Dietze, 75 NY2d 47, 54 [1989]; see People v. Genao, 67 Misc 3d 140[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50700[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020], lv denied 37 NY3d 965 [2021]). All concur THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. By: Brigantti, J.P., Hagler, Michael, JJ.
16-173. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. ANGEL FERRER, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Abena Darkeh, J. at plea, Steven M. Statsinger, J. at sentencing), rendered September 10, 2015, affirmed. Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument is assessed under the reasonable cause standard applicable to 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 criminal contempt in the second degree (see Penal Law §215.50[3]). The instrument alleges that on November 12, 2014, defendant signed a five-year order of protection “in court” that directed him to “stay away” from Emilia Ribot. The instrument further alleges that on three subsequent dates — May 14, 2015, May 21, 2015 and June 3, 2015 — defendant intentionally disobeyed the order when he went to Ribot’s apartment and “banged on her door for five minutes” while “cursing and screaming to be let inside” (see People v. Salazar, 290 AD2d 256 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 760 [2002]). These factual allegations are sufficient to particularize the crime charged and protect against a constitutional double jeopardy violation (see People v. Kaplan, 125 AD3d 465 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1203 [2015]; People v. Ellison, 106 AD3d 419 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1004 [2013]). Any further challenges to the validity of the order of protection were “matter[s] to be raised as a defense to the contempt charge, not by insistence that this [accusatory instrument] was jurisdictionally defective” (People v. Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004][internal quotation marks and alterations omitted]). Our previous affirmance of the conviction that resulted in the issuance of the order of protection (see People v. Ferrer, 73 Misc 3d 148[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50007[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 950 [2022]), renders defendant’s remaining argument academic. All concur THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. By: Brigantti, J.P., Hagler, Michael, JJ.
