People v. Savon (Emilio)

People v Savon (2025 NY Slip Op 50521(U))

[*1] <table align="center"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center"><b>People v Savon (Emilio)</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2025 NY Slip Op 50521(U) [85 Misc 3d 138(A)]</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Decided on April 15, 2025</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Appellate Term, First Department</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.</td></tr> </tbody></table> <br><br> Decided on April 15, 2025 <br><div></div>SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT <br>PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.

<br>570119/20 <br><br><div><b>The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Emilio Savon, Defendant-Appellant.</b></div><br><br>

<p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michael A. Frishman, J.), rendered February 18, 2020, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.</p>

<p><strong>Per Curiam.</strong></p> <p>Judgment of conviction (Michael A. Frishman, J.), rendered February 18, 2020, affirmed.</p> <p>Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument is assessed under the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (<i>see People v Dumay</i>, 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 petit larceny (<i>see</i> Penal Law § 155.25). A Macy's store detective observed defendant "remove several items, including a coat and ten shirts, from the displays, place the shirts inside a shopping bag and put on the coat" before "bypass[ing] the store cash registers and attempt[ing] to leave the store without paying for the items." The instrument further alleges that a store employee recovered the merchandise from defendant. Contrary to defendant's present claim, these allegations were nonconclusory and facially sufficient to support the charged offense (<i>see People v Livingston</i>, 150 AD3d 448, 449 [2017], <i>lv denied</i> 29 NY3d 1093 [2017]; <i>see also People v Olivo</i>, 52 NY2d 309, 318-319 [1981]).</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p> I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 15, 2025

<br><br><div>

</div>