| People v Our Future, LLC |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 50358(U) [22 Misc 3d 139(A)] |
| Decided on February 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Term, Second 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Howard M.
Bergson, J.), rendered June 19, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of
failing to complete and file a rental registration form.
Judgment of conviction reversed, on the law, information dismissed, and fine, if paid, remitted.
We agree with defendant that the information is jurisdictionally defective. Defendant was
charged with, and convicted of, violating Brookhaven Town Code § 82-10, entitled "Rental
registration required." This provision sets forth the requirement that an owner "complete[] and
file[] with the Chief Building Inspector a rental registration form . . . ." The information is
jurisdictionally defective because it does not provide allegations that "establish, if true," (CPL
100.40 [1] [c]) that defendant failed to comply
with the requirement (see People v Jones, 9 NY3d 259 [2007]; People v
Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]). Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of
violating Brookhaven Town Code § 82-10 is reversed and the information is dismissed.
Defendant also purports, in its brief, to appeal from a judgment convicting it of violating Brookhaven Town Code § 82-3, entitled "Neighborhood preservation requirements." Although defendant was found guilty of violating § 82-3 at the same nonjury trial at which it was found guilty of violating § 82-10, it was sentenced for the § 82-3 conviction on April 3, 2008. The sole notice of appeal describes the appeal as being from "each and every part of the Judgment and Sentence . . . entered . . . on or about June 19 2008," and thus does not, by its terms, cover the [*2]conviction under § 82-3. Moreover, the notice was filed on July 14, 2008, and was thus not timely with respect to the conviction under § 82-3 (see CPL 460.10 [1] [a]). As no timely notice of appeal was filed for the § 82-3 conviction, no appeal from that conviction is properly before the court.
In view of our disposition, we pass on no other issues.
Tanenbaum, J.P., and LaCava, J., concur.
Molia, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: February 27, 2009