Summary
In Tarka, the Court of Appeals, in a one-paragraph memorandum opinion citing Hall, stated simply, "Inasmuch as the information charging defendant with disorderly conduct fails to allege the essential element of either intent or recklessness, as the People concede, the information is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed" (75 NY2d at 997 [internal citation omitted]).
Summary of this case from People v. JacksonOpinion
Decided May 8, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Judy Kluger, J.
Melanie Tarka, appellant pro se. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Carthy A. Smith of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Term should be reversed, the judgment of conviction vacated and the information dismissed.
To be facially sufficient, an information must contain allegations of every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof (CPL 100.40 [c]; 100.15 [3]). Inasmuch as the information charging defendant with disorderly conduct fails to allege the essential element of either intent or recklessness (see, Penal Law § 240.20), as the People concede, the information is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed (see, People v Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 135-136; People v Hall, 48 N.Y.2d 927, 928).
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.40), order reversed, etc.