In v. Dumas. 68 N.Y.2d 729, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686 (1986) the Court of Appeals found that a complaint which alleged that the defendant sold marijuana but failed to set forth the basis for the officer's conclusion that the substance was marijuana was facially insufficient. In Dumas, the arresting officer was required to state that as a result of his training and experience he was able to recognize marijuana. See People v. Denise L., 159 Misc. 2d 1080, 608 N.Y.S.2d 40 (Crim. Ct., Queens County 1994) citing, People v. Smith, 44 N.Y.2d 613, 621, 407 N.Y.S.2d 462, 378 N.E.2d 1032 (1978)(to be facially sufficient, complaint charging loitering for prostitution must plead some "qualifying factors," including officer's training and experience in identifying prostitution and prostitution-related activity, thereby "'... differentiating between casual street encounters and a series of acts of solicitation for prostitution.'")