Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Joanne D. Quinones, J.), rendered June 11, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of trespass, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Joanne D. Quinones, J.), rendered June 11, 2012, affirmed.

In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of the charged offense of criminal trespass in the second degree (see Penal Law §140.15). The accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that defendant was observed "inside the lobby of the [Housing Authority] dwelling beyond the vestibule" and a posted "No Trespassing" sign; that defendant was not a tenant in that he "provided [an] address[] different" from the specified building; and that defendant was not "an invited guest in that [he] w[as] unable to provide the identity of a resident" in the building. These allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that the lobby area was part of the dwelling and that defendant knowingly entered or remained unlawfully therein (see People v Barnes, __ NY3d __, 2015 NY Slip Op 07577 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.