Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Judy H. Kim, J.), rendered October 26, 2018, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of forcible touching, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Judy H. Kim, J.), rendered October 26, 2018, affirmed.

Since defendant waived 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, 522 [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 forcible touching (see Penal Law § 130.52), the offense to which defendant ultimately pleaded guilty. The instrument recited, inter alia, that at a specified subway station, complainant "observed the defendant place his hand on" and "grab" her breast and that he "continue[d] to touch her" even after she told defendant to "stop touching her."

Contrary to defendant's contention, complainant's identification of defendant as the perpetrator was based upon her personal observation of defendant and was nonconclusory. Any further challenge to the identification of defendant was a matter to be raised at trial, not by insistence that the instrument was jurisdictionally defective (see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004]; People v Roldan, 71 Misc 3d 135[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50426[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 995 [2021]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.