Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered October 22, 2010, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of forcible touching, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered October 22, 2010, affirmed.

We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging forcible touching (see Penal Law § 130.52). The information — comprising the misdemeanor complaint and the victim's supporting deposition — alleged that at a specified time and inside a designated subway station defendant rubbed his "groin area" and exposed penis against the victim's buttocks without the victim's consent. These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant committed the crime of forcible touching (see Matter of Nejee A., 26 AD3d 258 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703 [2006]; see also People v Pardew, 20 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51383[U] [2008 App Term, 1st Dept], lv denied 11 NY3d 792 [2008]). At the pleading stage, the sworn allegation that the victim did not consent to any sexual contact is "sufficiently evidentiary in character" (People v Allen, 92 NY2d 378, 385 [1998]) to support the lack of consent element of the charged crime (see Penal Law § 130.05[1][lack of consent in forcible touching prosecution results from "any circumstances . . . in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor's conduct"]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.
Decision Date: June 27, 2012