[T] People v. Farra S.6/1/2004
rience in identifying prostitution-related activity, and granted the People leave to replead.
The information in People v Zumpfe, NYLJ, April 22, 1991, at 26, col 1 ( Crim Ct, NY County) was found facially insufficient as it alleged only that a police officer observed the defendant for ten to fifteen minutes in an area known for prostitution and, during that time, she stood in the middle of the street, beckoned to passing traffic, and stopped three male passersby and/or motorists. In People v Little, NYLJ, July 30, 1992, at 26, col 5, (Crim Ct, Kings County), the court dismissed an information which similarly provided "only the barest allegations." That information alleged that the officer observed the defendant for approximately thirty minutes during which time she stopped six vehicles with male occupants, that the area was known for prostitution-related activities, that the officer was familiar with the general attire and deportment of individuals involved in prostitution and that he had made an unspecified number of prostitution arrests. It did not, however, provide details of the defendant's behavior and attire at the time of the offense and offered conclusions instead of specific facts regarding the area and circumstances in which the conduct occurred, among other deficiencies.
In support of her argument for dismissal, the defendant relies primarily upon the case of People v Byrd, 149 Misc2d 350 (Crim Ct, NY County 1991). That case is readily distinguishable as that information contained significantly less indicia of prostitution. The information in Byrd alleged only that the defendant was observed loitering and wandering for ten to fifteen minutes during which time she beckoned to passing traffic and stopped three male passersby and/or motorists, the location was one frequented by prostitutes and their patrons, the defendant was in the middle of the street, the defendant did not approach any females, and there were no stores or restaurants open in the area at the time.
Notably, the information in Byrd is different from the instant information in that it did not allege that the defendant engaged anyone in conversation, obstructed traffic, was not waiting at a bus or taxi stand, none of the motorists she approached were livery, taxi or bus drivers, or that she was observed at the same location engaging in the same behavior on other occasions. Further, it failed to demonstrate that the officer who observed the defendant was experienced in the field of prostitution crimes. The information in Byrd contained no description of the clothing worn by the defendant while the instant information alleges that the defendant wore tight black leather pants, a V-cut shirt which revealed the sides of her breasts, and chrome- tipped stilettos, attire which certainly can be categorized as "provocative." See People v Koss, supra. These and the other factual allegations of the instant information, read together, sufficiently establish that the defendant's purpose in loitering was to engage in prostitution. See People v Smith, supra; People v Koss, supra.
Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the information as facially insufficient is denied.
The People, in their Voluntary Disclosure Form, indicate they intend to introduce a statement made by the defendant to a police officer. However, no notice was served pursuant to CPL § 710.30(1)(a) within fifteen days of the defendant's arraignment. As such, the People are precluded from introducing said statement.
Discovery is granted to the extent provided in the People's Voluntary Disclosure Form.
The defendant's Sandoval motion is reserved for the trial court.
|