| People v Norales |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07163 [88 AD3d 499] |
| October 13, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| The People of the State of New York,
Respondent, v Augustin Norales, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Hannah E.C. Moore of counsel), for
respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered February 11, 2009, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal trespass in the third degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge and a $150 fine, unanimously affirmed.
The misdemeanor information sufficiently alleged that defendant knowingly and unlawfully entered a nonpublic area of a building. There is no material distinction between the allegations of this information and those upheld in People v Maresca (19 Misc 3d 133[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50663[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2008]) and People v Quinones (2002 NY Slip Op 50091[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 680 [2002]). The allegations plainly indicate that defendant entered a nonpublic lobby, and not merely a public vestibule. The factual allegations of an information are to be "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading," and are sufficient so long as they "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" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]).
The information was also sufficient to allege that defendant knowingly entered the lobby unlawfully. The allegations that defendant entered the lobby through a locked door, notwithstanding a conspicuous no-trespassing sign, and when questioned did not claim to be a [*2]resident or invited guest, satisfied the knowledge element of trespass (see e.g. People v Flores, 21 Misc 3d 141[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52371[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2008]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe and Sweeny, JJ.