Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michael J. Gaffey, J.), rendered June 13, 2019, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Michael J. Gaffey, J.), rendered June 13, 2019, affirmed.

Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument is assessed under the reasonable cause standard applicable to a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the instrument charging petit larceny was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant stole property (see Penal Law § 155.25). The instrument recites, in relevant part, that on May 29, 2019, inside a specified CVS store, defendant and co-defendant Craig Shumate concealed items inside bags, including thirteen pints of ice cream and five containers of laundry detergent, and attempted to exit the store without paying for said items; that when the employee tried to stop the defendants from leaving, co-defendant Shumate pulled out a knife and stated "don't touch me or I'll use it;" and that the defendants left the store with the above-referenced items without paying for them. These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes since they provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (see People v Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the factual allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant, acting alone or in concert with the co-defendant, stole the property (see Penal Law §§ 20.00, 155.25).

Our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. In satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging first degree robbery (see Penal Law § 160.15[3]), a felony, defendant pleaded guilty to petit larceny. Defendant had counsel on the case, who waived formal allocution, and defendant personally confirmed that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and understood that he was giving up the right to trial, to question witnesses against him and testify on his own behalf, if he chose to do so. Thus, the record as a whole [*2]establishes defendant's understanding and waiver of his constitutional rights, despite the absence of a full enumeration of all the rights waived (see People v Sougou, 26 NY3d 1052, 1054 [2015]; People v Simmons, 138 AD3d 520 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1139 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.