Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County, rendered December 30, 2002 (Eileen Koretz, J.) convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of trademark counterfeiting in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.71), and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction rendered December 30, 2002 (Eileen Koretz, J.) affirmed.

We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging trademark counterfeiting in the third degree (see Penal Law § 165.71). The information — comprising the misdemeanor complaint and supporting depositions of the arresting police officer and a representative of the trademark owner — alleges that at a specified time and location police observed defendant "display and offer for sale more than 10 scarfs"; identifies and distinguishes the characteristics of the genuine and counterfeit trademarks; and states that the allegedly counterfeit "Burberry" and related trademarks appearing on the scarfs is registered and in use. These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant committed the offense of third-degree trademark counterfeiting (see People v Lynch, 8 Misc 3d 126[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50894[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]). At the pleading stage, the sworn allegation that defendant displayed and offered for sale more than 10 scarfs is "sufficiently evidentiary in character" to support the sale or offer for sale element of the charged offense (id.; see generally People v Allen, 92 NY2d 378, 385 [1998] ["bare boned" allegation that defendant "did solicit" a marihuana sale held sufficient to support criminal solicitation charge]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: September 28, 2005