By: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Edmead, JJ.19-067. 151ST AND WALTON LLC, pet-lan-app, v. WINFIELD DEMUNN, res-ten-res, -and- “JOHN DOE” AND “JANE DOE”, res-und — Order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated December 12, 2017, reversed, with $10 costs, tenant’s cross motion denied, petition reinstated, and matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings.Tenant’s cross motion to dismiss this nonprimary residence holdover proceeding, premised upon claimed inadequacies in the notice of lease nonrenewal, should have been denied. The notice alleged, inter alia, that a review of security camera footage revealed that tenant was rarely if ever present in the building; landlord’s employees and neighbors have rarely seen tenant in or around the building; landlord was unable to gain access to fix a leak and tenant did not respond to a letter demanding access; and that other individuals were seen coming in and out of the apartment on a regular basis. The notice thus set forth case-specific allegations tending to support landlord’s nonprimary residence claim with sufficient detail to have allowed tenant to prepare a defense (see City of New York v. Valera, 216 AD2d 237 [1995]), and otherwise satisfied the specificity requirements of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §2524.2(b) (see Oxford Towers Co., LLC v. Leites, 41 AD3d 144, 144-145 [2007]; Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997]). Tenant has not shown that he was misled as to the nature of this proceeding or was prejudiced in responding to the petition (see Avon Bard Co. v. Aquarian Found., 260 AD2d 207, 210 [1999], appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 998 [1999]).In reinstating the petition, we do not pass upon landlord’s application for leave to conduct discovery, an issue whose merits were not reached below. Our disposition is without prejudice to landlord’s right to renew its application for such relief in Civil Court.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.May 21, 2019
By: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Edmead, JJ.18-327. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. GUSTAVO HERNANDEZ, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Phyllis Chu, J.), rendered March 15, 2018, affirmed.The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. It charged all the elements of second-degree harassment (see Penal Law §240.26[1]), the sole offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. Indeed, defendant does not challenge the facial sufficiency of this charge.Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the third-degree assault charge contained in the accusatory instrument is unavailing, since he is not aggrieved by alleged defects in a charge of which he was not convicted (see People v. Ruiz, 146 AD3d 417 [2017], lv denied 28 NY3d 1188 [2017]).Defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. At the plea proceeding held fourteen months after arraignment, defendant, represented by counsel, knowingly acknowledged his desire to plead guilty to second-degree harassment; admitted the details of his crime; and acknowledged his understanding of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty (see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]), including the right to a trial, the right to call witnesses, and the right to have his lawyer present a defense (see People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]; People v. Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054 [2015]). The plea court also specifically informed defendant of the precise terms of the conditional discharge, and defendant’s claim that the plea was invalid because he was not informed of its length is unavailing (see People v. Kidd, 105 AD3d 1267 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1005 [2013]; People v. Kripanidhi, 59 Misc 3d 148[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50789[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 938 [2018]).In any event, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests that this court affirm his conviction if it does not grant dismissal. Since dismissal is not warranted, we affirm on this basis as well (see People v. Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [2016]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.May 21, 2019
