The Defendant in this case is accused of Prostitution under PL § 230.00. The Complaint, however, does not allege that Defendant received money directly from the Undercover Officer, acting as a buyer, but that she acted through the intermediary of a third party. Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint for facial insufficiency pursuant to CPL § 170.30(1)(a), 170.35(1)(a)-(b), 100.15, and 100.40, arguing that the Complaint fails to establish that Defendant agreed to enter into the agreement required under PL § 230.00. We find, pursuant to People v. Choi, 18 Misc 3d 1122(A), 2008 WL 223275, 2008 NY Slip Op. 50160(U) (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2008), that the mere fact that an agreement to engage in sex for money was secured through a procurer does not render the Complaint insufficient. Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint is therefore denied.

In order to be sufficient on its face, an accusatory instrument must contain non-hearsay factual allegations that provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offenses charged, and must establish, if true, every element of the offense charged. CPL § 100.40(4)(b); CPL § 100.40(1)(c); People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 511 NE2d 71, 517 NYS2d 927 (1987); People v. Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 497 NE2d 686, 506 NYS2d 319 (1986).

The Complaint in this case, which is signed by Detective Joebian Ortiz, states, in relevant part:

Deponent states that, the Deponent is informed by Undercover 7331 that, at the above time and place, the Informant was led by apprehended other, Defendant Roberto Juarez ... to the [*2]above mentioned premise [sic] where Informant was approached by Defendant Perez, who informed Informant that Informant would be able to engage in sexual intercourse with either Defendant Perez, Defendant Rodriguez, or Defendant Beanca for the price of $40.00 United States Currency.

Deponent is further informed by the Informant that the Informant did hand Defendant Perez a sum of $40.00, pre-recorded buy money, in exchange for a ticket, at which point, Informant did inform Defendant Perez that Informant would engage in coitus with Defendant Rodriguez.

Deponent is further informed by the Informant that the Informant was led into a bedroom by Defendant Rodriguez, and that Defendant Rodriguez did take out a condom and lubricant and did tell Informant to pull Informant's pants down.

Deponent further states that Deponent did recover the pre-recorded buy money from the above mentioned premises.

B. The Complaint Sufficiently Alleges Prostitution (PL § 230.00)

A person is guilty of Prostitution under PL § 230.00 when he or she "agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee." Defendant argues that the Complaint is insufficient because it lacks allegations that Defendant Rodriguez accepted or agreed to accept a fee in exchange for sex, or that she participated in the alleged negotiations between the Undercover Detective and co-Defendant Perez.

As the People argue, however, the Complaint establishes every element of the statute. The Complaint alleges that the Undercover Officer was informed by co-Defendant Perez that for $40, he could have sex with one of three women (including co-Defendant Perez and Defendant Rodriguez); that the Undercover Officer paid the agreed-upon sum, stating that he would have sex with Defendant Rodriguez; and that once the Undercover Officer handed Defendant Perez the $40.00, Defendant Rodriguez led the Officer into a bedroom, displayed a condom and lubricant, and encouraged the Officer to remove his pants.

Defendant's argument that these allegations insufficiently show Prostitution is unavailing. PL § 230.00 does not require allegations that the Defendant received money directly, but merely that he or she agreed to provide sex in exchange for money. The mere presence of a managing structure does not immunize a Defendant who agrees to provide sex in exchange for money. People v. Choi, supra . Thus, Prostitution is established where, as here, an Undercover Officer allegedly negotiates a sum, pays up-front, chooses one of several available women and is then turned over to the woman of his choice to receive the wares he purchased. People v. Choi, supra (Prostitution was established where, having been told by another woman that the cost of "full service" was $130, the Undercover Officer was encouraged to pick one of six women paraded in front of him;). See also In Re Ernani G., 7 Misc 3d 1026(A), 801 NYS2d 233, 2005 NY Slip Op. 50757(U) (Fam. Ct. Queens Co. 2005) (Prostitution established where Police Officer offered another individual $40 in exchange for oral sex with Defendant, and where Defendant nodded in agreement).

A Court need not ignore common sense or the significance of the alleged conduct in determining facial insufficiency. People v. Gonzalez, 184 Misc 2d 262, 708 NYS2d 564 (App. Term 1st Dept. 200), lv denied, 95 NY2d 835, 735 NE2d 422, 713 NYS2d 142 (2000). Given that many prostitutes do not negotiate with their customers directly, but are represented or peddled by intermediaries - be they known as pimps, procurers, madams, brothel owners or [*3]escort service managers ^[FN1] - dismissing the Complaint because the Defendant did not directly receive money would require this Court to ignore the significance of the conduct alleged. We are not required to give a Complaint such a hypertechnical reading. People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 740 NE2d 233, 717 NYS2d 88 (2002); People v Sylla, 7 Misc 3d 8, 792 NYS2d 764 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2005), lv. denied, 4 NY3d 857, 830 NE2d 330, 797 NYS2d 431 (2005).

Defendant's motion to dismiss the count of Prostitution (PL § 230.00), is therefore denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Dated:May 2, 2008

Brooklyn, New York______________________________

Michael Gerstein, J.C.C.