The opinion of the court was delivered by: Evelyn J. LaPorte, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.
The defendant, MICHAEL REAPE, is charged with one count of Resisting Arrest (Penal Law § 205.30), and one count of Trespass (Penal Law § 140.05). He moves, inter alia, to dismiss the count of Trespass for facial insufficiency (see C.P.L. § 170.30 ). He also moves to dismiss the count of Resisting Arrest, as that charge would not be able to stand if the underlying charge of Trespass does not survive. For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency is denied.
The instant information alleges that on August 21, 2008, the defendant was arrested, after some resistance, following being asked to remove himself from the property and vicinity of a police precinct.
The complaint reads in pertinent part as follows:
The deponent states that (Police Officer Benjamin Perez) observed the defendant enter (480 Knickerbocker Avenue County of Kings, State of New York) which is the 83rd Police Precinct Station.
Deponent further states that the defendant stated that the defendant was looking for Detective Jones.
Deponent further states that there is no person named Detective Jones who works at the above-mentioned location.
Deponent further states that the deponent told Defendant that there is no person by the name of Detective Jones in the 83rd Precinct, that the deponent asked if the deponent could help the defendant with something and that the defendant repeated that he wanted to speak to Detective Jones and that Defendant knew that the deponent was hiding the Detective Jones from the defendant.
Deponent further states that the defendant became irate and began to yell and scream.
Deponent further states that the deponent told the defendant to leave the above-mentioned location.
Deponent further states that, as a New York City Police Officer Deponent is custodian of the above building and the defendant did not have permission or authority to remain in the premises and that defendant refused to leave the premises when asked to do so and that Defendant could not provide a legitimate reason for being in the precinct.
Deponent further states that when deponent attempted to make a lawful arrest and handcuff Defendant, Defendant ...