defendant to prepare defense in New York

1955Geyer, 196 N. Y. 364 .) Although the name of the person injured should be stated to identify the crime charged, to permit a defendant to prepare his defense, and to prevent double jeopardy (People v. Devinny, 227 N. Y. 397 ; People v. CorbaKs, 178 N. Y. 516 ), it is a detail which serves merely to describe the crime and does not form a part of the substance or body of the offense charged (People v. Johnson, supra; People v. Lamm, supra).

1947(See People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 ; People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 .) Judge O’Bbiex expressed the rule succinctly in People v. Corbalis ( 178 N. Y. 516, 520-521 , supra): ■ “ These-decisions establish that the object of the legislature'— in requiring that in addition to charging the crime the indictment must contain a plain and concise statement of the act constituting the. crime — is twofold: First, to enable a defendant to prepare his defense; second, to prevent a second indictment for

1958(People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Helmer, 154 N. Y. 596 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 ; People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 .) Before discussing the second attempt to simplify indictments in this State, I return to a consideration of the indictment in issue.

1909In People v. Helmer, 154 N. Y. 596 , the court says: “ The purpose of an indictment is to identify the charge against a defendant, so- that his conviction or acquittal may inure to his subsequent protection, and to apprise him of the nature and character of the offense charged and of the facts which may be proved, so as to- enable him to prepare his defense.” In People v. Corbalis, supra, Judge Parkeb. writing, it is said: “These decisions establish that the object of the legislature—in requiring that in addition to charging the crime the indictment must contain a plain and concise statement o

2016Allegations are sufficient for pleading purposes where they provide adequate notice to enable a defendant to prepare a defense and protect against double jeopardy (People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142 [2014]).

2016Rather, they need only provide an accused with adequately detailed factual allegations of an evidentiary nature sufficient for a defendant to prepare a defense, and prevent him from being tried twice for the same offense (People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142 [2014]; Kalin, 12 NY3d at 230 ).

2019The factual allegations in a misdemeanor complaint are sufficient if they provide defendant with " 'sufficient notice of the charged crimes to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy' " ( People v Dumay , 23 NY3d 518 , 524 [2014], quoting People v Dreyden , 15 NY3d at 103 ), that is, to enable a defendant to prepare a defense and to avoid being tried twice for the same offense ( see People v Konieczny , 2 NY3d 569 , 576 [2004]; People v Batts , 53 Misc 3d 153 [A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51729[U] , *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

2019While the law does not require that an accusatory instrument contain the most precise words or phrases most clearly expressing the charge, the offense and factual bases therefor must be sufficiently alleged so as to allow a defendant to prepare a defense and prevent him or her from being tried twice for the same offense( see Konieczny , 2 NY3d at 575 ; People v Casey , 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]).

1994It is clear, however, that if the time period charged is so large that it is "virtually impossible” for the defendant to prepare a defense, the indictment must be dismissed "even though the People have acted diligently and a shorter time period cannot be alleged” (People v Beauchamp, 74 NY2d 639, 641 ).

1993In any event, the indictment alleged that the conduct occurred within a 31-day period, which was not so large as to render it virtually impossible for the defendant to prepare a defense, and was not so excessive, considering the age of the victim and the nature of the crime, as to be unreasonable (see, People v Watt, 81 NY2d 772 ; People v Beauchamp, 74 NY2d 639, 641 ; People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410, 416 ; People v Lopez, 175 AD2d 267, 268 ; People v Barrett, 166 AD2d 657, 658 ).

1977(CPL 200.50; People v Williams, 243 NY 162 ; People v Brian R, 78 Misc 2d 616 , affd 47 AD2d 599 .) Although similar to and containing some of the elements of the crime of conspiracy (Penal Law, art 105), accessorial conduct (Penal Law, art 20) is not now a separate crime for which a defendant may be indicted and tried.

1972(People v. Armlin, 6 N Y 2d 231, 234; People v. Farson, 244 N. Y. 413, 417 ; People v. Williams, 243 N. Y. 162, 165 ; see, also, Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749, 763-764 ; Hagner v. United States, 285 U. S. 427, 431 ; 4 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure, § 1760 [R Anderson ed., 1957].) * To fulfill this function and to satisfy the requirement in section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the indictment contain 1 ‘ A plain and concise statement of the act constituting the crime ’ ’, an indictment must, therefore, not only charge the crime claimed to have been committed, but mu

1958(People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Helmer, 154 N. Y. 596 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 ; People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 .) Before discussing the second attempt to simplify indictments in this State, I return to a consideration of the indictment in issue.

1947(See People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 ; People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 .) Judge O’Bbiex expressed the rule succinctly in People v. Corbalis ( 178 N. Y. 516, 520-521 , supra): ■ “ These-decisions establish that the object of the legislature'— in requiring that in addition to charging the crime the indictment must contain a plain and concise statement of the act constituting the. crime — is twofold: First, to enable a defendant to prepare his defense; second, to prevent a second indictment for

1958(People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Helmer, 154 N. Y. 596 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 ; People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 .) Before discussing the second attempt to simplify indictments in this State, I return to a consideration of the indictment in issue.

1947(See People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 ; People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 .) Judge O’Bbiex expressed the rule succinctly in People v. Corbalis ( 178 N. Y. 516, 520-521 , supra): ■ “ These-decisions establish that the object of the legislature'— in requiring that in addition to charging the crime the indictment must contain a plain and concise statement of the act constituting the. crime — is twofold: First, to enable a defendant to prepare his defense; second, to prevent a second indictment for

1958(People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Helmer, 154 N. Y. 596 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 ; People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 .) Before discussing the second attempt to simplify indictments in this State, I return to a consideration of the indictment in issue.

1947(See People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 ; People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 .) Judge O’Bbiex expressed the rule succinctly in People v. Corbalis ( 178 N. Y. 516, 520-521 , supra): ■ “ These-decisions establish that the object of the legislature'— in requiring that in addition to charging the crime the indictment must contain a plain and concise statement of the act constituting the. crime — is twofold: First, to enable a defendant to prepare his defense; second, to prevent a second indictment for

1958(People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Helmer, 154 N. Y. 596 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 ; People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 .) Before discussing the second attempt to simplify indictments in this State, I return to a consideration of the indictment in issue.

1947(See People v. Corbalis, 178 N. Y. 516 ; People v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576 ; People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392 ; People v. Klipfel, 160 N. Y. 371 ; People v. Kane, 161 N. Y. 380 .) Judge O’Bbiex expressed the rule succinctly in People v. Corbalis ( 178 N. Y. 516, 520-521 , supra): ■ “ These-decisions establish that the object of the legislature'— in requiring that in addition to charging the crime the indictment must contain a plain and concise statement of the act constituting the. crime — is twofold: First, to enable a defendant to prepare his defense; second, to prevent a second indictment for

1933(People v. Dumar, 106 N. Y. 502, 509 ; People v. Bates, 61 App. Div. 559, 561 .) The object of this requirement is two-fold: (1) To enable a defendant to prepare his defense; and (2) to prevent a second indictment for the same offense.

1931(People v. Dumar, 106 N. Y. 502, 509 ; People v. Bates, 61 App. Div. 559, 561 .) The object of this requirement is twofold: (1) To enable a defendant to prepare his defense; and (2) to prevent a second indictment for the same offense.

1933(People v. Dumar, 106 N. Y. 502, 509 ; People v. Bates, 61 App. Div. 559, 561 .) The object of this requirement is two-fold: (1) To enable a defendant to prepare his defense; and (2) to prevent a second indictment for the same offense.

1931(People v. Dumar, 106 N. Y. 502, 509 ; People v. Bates, 61 App. Div. 559, 561 .) The object of this requirement is twofold: (1) To enable a defendant to prepare his defense; and (2) to prevent a second indictment for the same offense.

1915People v. Lammerts, 164 N. Y. 137, 144 ; People v. Helmer, 154 id. 596, 600; People v. Dimick, 107 id. 13, 29.

1915People v. Lammerts, 164 N. Y. 137, 144 , 15 N. Y.

2023Although a bill of particulars may be used to “sustain an otherwise defective indictment” under certain circumstances (Iannone, 45 NY2d at 597 ; see People v Morris, 61 NY2d 290, 293-294 [1984]), here the bill of particulars simply contained a factual recitation of defendant’s alleged conduct.

2019Moreover, where, as here, a defendant has pleaded guilty to one or more of the counts actually charged in a multicount accusatory instrument, and, on appeal, raises a jurisdictional challenge, the defendant need not challenge the facial sufficiency of all of the counts contained in the accusatory instrument at the time the defendant entered the guilty plea; rather, he or she need only challenge the facial sufficiency of the actual count or counts to which he or she pleaded guilty ( see People v Mason , 62 Misc 3d 75 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; see also Dumay , 23 NY3d

2019The factual allegations in a misdemeanor complaint are sufficient if they provide defendant with " 'sufficient notice of the charged crimes to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy' " ( People v Dumay , 23 NY3d 518 , 524 [2014], quoting People v Dreyden , 15 NY3d at 103 ), that is, to enable a defendant to prepare a defense and to avoid being tried twice for the same offense ( see People v Konieczny , 2 NY3d 569 , 576 [2004]; People v Batts , 53 Misc 3d 153 [A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51729[U] , *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

2019Moreover, where, as here, a defendant has pleaded guilty to one or more of the counts actually charged in a multicount accusatory instrument, and, on appeal, raises a jurisdictional challenge, the defendant need not challenge the facial sufficiency of all of the counts contained in the accusatory instrument at the time the defendant entered the guilty plea; rather, he or she need only challenge the facial sufficiency of the actual count or counts to which he or she pleaded guilty ( see People v Mason , 62 Misc 3d 75 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; see also Dumay , 23 NY3d

2018The indictment must, however, set forth a time interval which reasonably serves the function of protecting defendant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense and to use the judgment against further prosecution for the same crime" ( People v Watt , 81 NY2d 772, 774 [1993] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Morris , 61 NY2d 290, 294 [1984]; People v Garcia , 141 AD3d 861, 863 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016]).

2016Rather, they need only provide an accused with adequately detailed factual allegations of an evidentiary nature sufficient for a defendant to prepare a defense, and prevent him from being tried twice for the same offense (People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142 [2014]; Kalin, 12 NY3d at 230 ).