| People v Zoungrana (Amadou) |
| 2006 NY Slip Op 51795(U) [13 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on September 22, 2006 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered May 5, 2005, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of unlicensed general vending, and imposing sentence.
PER CURIAM:
Judgment of conviction (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered May 5, 2005, affirmed.
We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging unlicensed general vending (see Administrative Code of City of New York
§ 29-453). The information - comprising the misdemeanor complaint and the arresting police officer's supporting deposition - alleges, inter alia, that at a specified time and location defendant, lacking the requisite license, "display[ed]" and "offer[ed] for sale" six pairs of sunglasses from an "open shopping bag" that defendant "never put. . . down" and that two individuals approached defendant, examined the merchandise, and "engage[d] in conversation" with defendant. 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 violated the general vending ordinance. Contrary to defendant's arguments, the accusatory instrument is not jurisdictionally infirm due to the absence of specific allegations concerning the nature of the conversations between defendant and the persons who examined the sunglasses; nor was it a sine qua non of the sale or offer for sale element of the charged offense that the sunglasses be "spread[ ] out" on some sort of "display case". At the pleading stage, the officer's sworn allegations that defendant, without the required license, displayed and offered for sale six pairs of sunglasses on a City street, are "sufficiently evidentiary in character" to support the elements of unlicensed general vending (see People v [*2]Zhou Yu, 4 Misc 3d 128[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50630[U][App Term, lst Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 713 [2004]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: September 22, 2006