People v. Jimenez

── People v. Jimenez ── Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General <div>People v Jimenez - 2026 NY Slip Op 50721(U) <div> skip to main content </div> <div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>People v Jimenez</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 50721(U)</p> <p>May 14, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Term, First Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.</p> </div> <div><b>Digest-Index Classification: </b>Crimes—Criminal Tampering--Facial Sufficiency of Accusatory Instrument</div> <div> <p>The People of the State of New York, Respondent,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Fausto Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant.</p> </div> <p>Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department</p> <p>Decided on May 14, 2026</p> <p>570501/22</p> <p>Present: James, P.J., Brigantti, Perez, JJ. </p> <p> </p><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Jeffrey Zimmerman, J. at plea, Michael John Hartofilis, J. at sentencing), rendered August 30, 2022, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted criminal tampering in the second degree, and imposing sentence.</p> <p></p>[*1] <p><b>Per Curiam.</b></p> <p>Judgment of conviction (Jeffrey Zimmerman, J. at plea, Michael John Hartofilis, J. at sentencing), affirmed.</p> <p>Since defendant waived his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (<i>see People v Dumay</i>, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant tampered with the property of a common carrier (<i>see</i> Penal Law § 145.15). The instrument recited that a police officer observed defendant, via video surveillance, "insert a long object into a United States Postal Service mailbox" and that defendant had "in his custody and control, inside of a blue bag, several glue traps and one (1) black belt with adhesive on it." These factual allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant engaged in "tampering" within the meaning of Penal Law § 145.15 (<i>see People v Gittens</i>, 279 AD2d 291 [2001]<i>, lv denied </i>96 NY2d 829 [2001]; <i>People v Then</i>, 73 Misc 3d 147[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 51267[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021], <i>lv denied </i>38 NY3d 954 [2022]).</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p> <p>I concur I concur I concur</p> <p>Decision Date: May 14, 2026</p> </div> <div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About the Law Reporti