By: Tisch, J.P., Michael, James, JJ. 16-226/227. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res v. ANTHONY PHILLIPS, def-app — Judgments of conviction (Raja Rajeswari, J.), rendered July 7, 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 under docket number 2015NY029507 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 defendant, while housed in the Manhattan Detention Center, telephoned Gianma Brito-Baez three times in late April 2015, including once at 2:04 p.m. on April 24, 2015, and that he thereby intentionally disobeyed a valid order of protection that directed him to refrain from communicating with or contacting Brito-Baez by telephone. The instrument further alleges that defendant was present in court at the April 9, 2015 issuance of the order of protection and signed it. These allegations gave defendant sufficient notice to prepare a defense and had detail adequate to prevent him from being tried twice for the same offense (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]). Since the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid with respect to the contempt charge to which defendant pleaded guilty, i.e. that related to the 2:04 p.m., April 24, 2015 telephone call, defendant is not aggrieved by any alleged defects in the other charged offenses (see People v. Ruiz, 146 AD3d 417 [2017], lv denied 28 NY3d 1188 [2017]). In view of our affirmance, defendant’s contention that his third-degree assault conviction under docket number 2015NY021594 should be vacated pursuant to People v. Fuggazzatto, 62 NY2d 862, 863 (1984), is academic. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. By: Tisch, J.P., Michael, James, JJ. 17-087. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res v. JASON VERNON, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Heidi C. Cesare, J.), rendered July 21, 2016, 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 unlicensed general vending (see Administrative Code of City of NY §20-453). The “public space” element of the offense (Administrative Code §20-452[d]) was satisfied by sworn police allegations that defendant was selling DVDs while “standing in front of a blanket” upon which the DVDs were arranged “at 4 South Street…a public sidewalk in the South Street Ferry” (see People v. Abdurraheem, 94 AD3d 569 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; People v. Sosa, 57 Misc 3d 129[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51166[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1063 [2017]; People v. Kasse, 40 Misc 3d 126[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51022 [U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013], affd 22 NY3d 1142 [2014]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. By: Tisch, J.P., Michael, James, JJ. 23-001. YOLANDA JOHNSON, plf-app v. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF SHOREHAVEN CONDOMINIUM AND SHOREHAVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., def-res — Order (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered on or about November 12, 2021, affirmed, without costs. The record establishes that the trial court accomplished “substantial justice” in dismissing the claim at the close of plaintiff’s evidence (CCA 1804, 1807; see Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]). Even assuming in plaintiff’s favor that the reference to “water damage” insurance in the condominium bylaws covered “flood insurance” (cf. Palmero v. Consulate on the Park, 149 Misc 2d 942 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1991]; Dan M. Blumenthal, Prac Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, RPL §339-bb), the bylaws unambiguously establish that the Board’s obligation to purchase such insurance is discretionary, not mandatory. Therefore, plaintiff condominium owner has no claim for damages against the condominium board, among others, based upon the latter’s determination to discontinue flood insurance. Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, the bylaws required the insurer, not defendants, to provide ten days’ notice in the event of a change or cancellation of coverage. We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. By: Tisch, J.P., Michael, James, JJ. 23-007/008. CHARLENE RICHARDSON, pet-app v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY-, GOMPERS HOUSES, res-res — Order (Frances A. Ortiz, J.) dated May 3, 2022, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Frances A. Ortiz, J.) dated June 8, 2022, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable. In light of the Housing Part’s expansive jurisdiction over proceedings to enforce proper housing standards (see Prometheus Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 80 AD3d 206, 210 [2010]; CCA 110), Civil Court properly granted respondent-landlord’s cross motion for access to petitioner’s apartment to complete urgent and necessary repairs (see Administrative Code of City of NY §27-2008). The June 8, 2022 order is “not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice” (Bitton v. H.S.B.C., 53 Misc 3d 154[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51746[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; see also CCA 1702[a][2]; CPLR 2211). Were we to nostra sponte grant leave to appeal this order, we would affirm. A court is vested with broad discretion to control its calendar (see 174 Second Equities, Corp. v. Hee Nam Bae, 57 AD3d 319 [2008]) and we find no abuse of discretion in setting the matter down for a pretrial conference under the circumstances of this proceeding. We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
