Defendant is charged with Prostitution (Penal Law §230.00). She moves for an order dismissing the information as facially insufficient under Criminal Procedure Law §100.40.

Criminal Procedure Law §100.40 and, by reference, Criminal Procedure Law §100.15 require that factual allegations of an evidentiary character in the information provide reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the offenses charged and that non-hearsay factual allegations establish a prima facie case that the defendant is guilty. (People v. Allen, 92NY2d 378). While an information must state the crime with which the defendant is charged and the particular facts constituting that crime (People v Hall, 48NY2d 927), the prima facie requirement is less stringent than the burden of proof required at trial. (People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677). So long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading. (People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354).

A person is guilty of the crime of Prostitution when she agrees to engage in sexual [*2]conduct with another person for a fee.

Although the allegations in the information do not directly establish that defendant agreed to engage in sexual conduct with the undercover for a fee, those allegations do circumstantially establish such an agreement by defendant. The information alleges that the undercover police officer was brought into the waiting room of an apartment that was operating as a house of prostitution. Other men were seated in the room. There he was greeted by another woman who told the undercover "the deal is $130 for full service". In response to his question, the undercover was told that he could pick any girl he wanted. Defendant and five other women were then brought into the room and paraded in front of the undercover. The undercover was asked to pick one of them.

The allegations in the information establish more than defendant's mere presence at the scene of a crime. Defendant was one of several women displayed inside a house of prostitution while the house was open for business and while a customer was present and in the process of choosing one of these women for sex. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to establish that defendant individually negotiated with the undercover in order to establish a prima facie case of prostitution. The Court is not required to turn a blind eye to compelling circumstantial evidence while engaged in a facial sufficiency review. See People v Prevete, 10 Misc 3d 78 (App Term 2005). The details provided in the information are sufficient for the Court to draw a reasonable inference that defendant was committing the crime of Prostitution. The fact that there was a management structure in place which set the terms of engagement does not automatically immunize from prosecution members of the workforce operating within that house of prostitution.

Defendant's motion to dismiss on facial sufficiency grounds is denied.

Defendant also challenges the validity of the undercover's signature on the supporting deposition and moves for a Kenrick hearing. The Court grants the motion to the extent of ordering such hearing.

Defendant's Sandoval motion is reserved for trial.

Defendant's suppression and preclusion motions are reserved pending the People's response to those motions.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:___________________________

New York, New YorkJudge of the Criminal Court