By: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ. 15-434/435. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. CHARLES LAMOUSNERY, def-app — Judgments of conviction (Erika M. Edwards, J.), rendered June 19, 2014, affirmed. As part of a global resolution of three separate criminal prosecutions arising from allegations that defendant assaulted multiple police officers and a peace officer on separate dates, and was in possession of a controlled substance on another, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of assault in the third degree (see Penal Law §120.00[1]) under docket number 2014NY007730 and one count of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (see Penal Law §195.05) under docket number 2014NY034320, in exchange for two concurrent 60-day jail sentences. The People agreed to “dismiss as covered” the third accusatory instrument, docket number 2014NY024764, charging defendant with, inter alia, seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance (see Penal Law §220.03). The court expressly noted that with respect to docket ending in 764, “that case is now dismissed as covered by your plea as to docket[s] ending 730 and 320.” Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instruments only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument under docket number 2014NY007730 was jurisdictionally valid, since it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of several counts of third-degree assault (see Penal Law §120.00[1]). The “physical injury” element of the offense was satisfied by, among other things, allegations that defendant “was swinging his arms repeatedly, striking police officers about the head and body, and kicking out with his feet”; that he struck an officer “in the right eye causing pain, redness and a scratch on the cornea of said eye”; that he “kicked” an officer in the “forehead, causing pain, redness and swelling”; and that the officer felt “substantial pain” (Penal Law §10.00[9]; see People v. Henderson, 92 NY2d 677, 680 [1999]; People v. Lang, 81 AD3d 538 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 896 [2011]). Defendant further alleges that the second-degree obstructing governmental administration charge in the accusatory instrument under docket ending 320 was jurisdictionally defective. Significantly, however, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instruments, and he expressly requests that we affirm the convictions if we do not grant a dismissal. Even accepting defendant’s contention that the pleaded charge under docket ending 320 was jurisdictionally defective, we do not find dismissal of the multiple remaining serious charges arising from defendant’s separate arrests would be appropriate, since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by remanding the matter to Criminal Court for further proceedings on these charges (see People v. Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 918 [1976]). All concur THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
By: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.
