What is the accusatory instrument in a criminal case when a defendant is observed sitting next to a damaged vehicle?

In People v. Whyte, 2002 N.Y. Slip Op 50406U (Crim Ct Bronx County, 2002) the defendant was observed sitting on the ground next to a damaged vehicle. The accusatory instrument in that case was not sufficient, because although it described the damage and alleged that the car's headlights were still on, it did not contain any allegations as to ownership of the vehicle, the possession or location of the keys, whether or not the engine was running, or whether or not the driver's side door or window was open (id. at 5), all factors that would have served to support a conclusion that the defendant had recently operated the vehicle.

In People v. MartinezGuzman, 36 Misc.3d 598 (Crim Ct Kings County 2012), the accusatory instrument was held to be sufficient as to the element of operation where it alleged that, at 4:55 a.m., defendant was standing next to the vehicle, which had the keys in the ignition and the engine running. The court held that operation [of a vehicle] may be inferred from the defendant's proximity to ... a vehicle, even if no witness observes him driving it. Id. at 600. The court further noted that the information sufficiently informed the defendant of what he was alleged to have done, through non-hearsay allegations of facts that require no special skill or discernment to draw a conclusion from. Id. at 60.