Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), rendered June 27, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of maintaining a structure without a certificate of occupancy and sentenced him to pay a fine of $5,000.

On the court's own motion, defendant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged, nunc pro tunc, to January 4, 2008.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Upon our review of the information accusing defendant of maintaining a structure without a certificate of occupancy, in violation of Huntington Town Code § 87-25 (A), we find that the information sufficiently apprised defendant of the nature and elements of the offense, and alleged facts of an evidentiary nature supporting the charge, providing reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense charged, and establishing, if true, every element of the offense (CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]). While defendant contends on appeal that certain of the factual allegations are hearsay, defendant waived that objection by failing to move pretrial to dismiss the information on that ground (id. at 365).

The District Court imposed the maximum fine of $5,000 (Huntington Town Code § 87-45) which, defendant contends, is unduly harsh and excessive given that this is the first time he [*2]was convicted of violating the subject provision. However, defendant admitted at trial that, in 1999, while represented by counsel, he pleaded guilty to an analogous offense based on the identical conduct alleged herein, i.e., maintaining an illegal apartment converted from a workspace adjacent to a detached garage, without a certificate of occupancy, was fined $1,000 therefor, and agreed to cure the violation. Defendant also admitted that he did not cure the violation; instead, he continued to rent the apartment, recovering rents in the intervening period totaling many multiples of the present fine, for a premises a Town of Huntington inspector established at trial to be uninhabitable. Defendant's culpability with respect to the conduct alleged, his
profiteering from that conduct, and his disregard for the welfare of the persons from whom he accepted rent for so long a period of time, justified the fine imposed. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

McCabe, J.P., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 30, 2008