Appeal from judgments of the City Court of Peekskill, Westchester County (William L. Maher, J.), rendered December 18, 2007. The judgments convicted defendants, after a nonjury trial, of violating Peekskill City Code § 575-50 (A) (1).

Judgments of conviction reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, accusatory instrument dismissed and fine, if paid, remitted.

Defendants were charged with violating Peekskill City Code § 575-50 (A) (1) in that they allegedly converted a basement recreation room into apartments contrary to a certificate of occupancy issued in June 2006. The pertinent part of Peekskill City Code § 575-52 (B) states that only the "owner, general agent or contractor of a business or
premises . . . where such violation has been committed or shall exist, and the general agent, architect, builder or contractor, or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in such violation" can be penalized for violating Peekskill City Code § 575-50 (A). Following a nonjury trial, defendants were found guilty as charged. The instant appeal by defendants ensued in which they contend, inter alia, that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish their guilt.

Since defendants did not object to the legal sufficiency of the evidence in the court below, they failed to preserve this objection for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]). Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it [*2]was legally insufficient to establish defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At trial, the People's sole witness, the code enforcement officer, provided no testimony regarding defendants' relationship to the property. The evidence adduced at trial failed to establish that defendants were any of the parties set forth in § 575-52 who are subject to criminal liability. Moreover, no testimony was provided regarding the existence of a June 2006 certificate of occupancy, or any violation thereof. Thus, the evidence did not establish any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the trier of fact (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Cahill, 2 NY3d 14,
57-58 [2003]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed (see CPL 470.20 [2]). We pass on no other issue.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 27, 2009