| People v Starkweather |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02599 [83 AD3d 1466] |
| April 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JessStarkweather, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), renderedFebruary 9, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalcontempt in the second degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, oftwo counts of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]). Accordingto defendant, reversal is required because the superior court information (SCI) charging him withthose offenses is jurisdictionally defective inasmuch as it fails to allege that he was aware that anorder of protection was in effect when he had physical contact with the victim. We reject thatcontention. An SCI "is subject to the same rules as an indictment (CPL 200.15), and anindictment that states no more than the bare elements of the crime charged and, in effect, parrotsthe Penal Law is legally sufficient; the defendant may discover the particulars of the crimecharged by requesting a bill of particulars" (People v Price, 234 AD2d 978, 978 [1996],lv denied 90 NY2d 862 [1997]; see People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 598-599[1978]; see generally People v Fitzgerald, 45 NY2d 574, 580 [1978], rearg denied46 NY2d 837 [1978]). Although the SCI in this case does not explicitly allege that defendant hadknowledge of the order of protection when he violated it by having physical contact with thevictim, the accusatory instrument is nevertheless jurisdictionally sufficient inasmuch as it alleges,in conformance with Penal Law § 215.50 (3), that defendant "intentionally disobeyed amandate of a court; that is, the defendant intentionally disobeyed an Order of Protection." In anyevent, we note our agreement with the People that the SCI sufficiently alleges defendant's allegedknowledge of the order of protection because he could not have intentionally violated the orderof protection unless he knew of its existence. Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto,Lindley and Martoche, JJ.