Scott Lockwood, for appellant. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from five judgments of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (John G. Marks, J.H.O.), rendered February 21, 2020. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of failing to display an inspection certificate, parking an unregistered vehicle, abandoning a vehicle, and two charges of improper display of license plates, respectively, and imposed sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are reversed, on the facts, the simplified traffic informations are dismissed, and the fines, if paid, are remitted.

In separate simplified traffic informations, defendant was charged with failing to display an inspection certificate (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 [b]), parking an unregistered vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 [6]), abandoning a vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1224 [7]), and two charges of improper display of license plates (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 [1]). After a nonjury trial, defendant was found guilty of the aforementioned charges and was sentenced to pay various fines.

Defendant argues, among other things, that the convictions are against the weight of the [*2]evidence because there is nothing in the record from which the court could conclude that the vehicle was parked on a "public highway," an element of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 306 (b) and 402 (1), (6), or that it was left on a "highway or public place," an element of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1224 (7). "Necessarily, in conducting its weight of the evidence review, a court must consider the elements of the crime, for even if the prosecution's witnesses were credible their testimony must prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). If it appears that the factfinder failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, this court may set aside the verdict and dismiss the accusatory instrument (see CPL 470.20 [5]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]).

Here, the prosecution's witness testified that his attention was drawn to a particular vehicle because it did not have any plates and that he believed that the vehicle had been abandoned because it had been parked for "at least more than ten days without being registered." He did not testify as to where the car was located; the most specific testimony was that he, himself, was in Coram. Consequently, the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, as the People failed to establish that the vehicle was left in a location that violated any of the statutes pursuant to which defendant was convicted.

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are reversed and the simplified traffic informations are dismissed.

EMERSON, J.P., and DRISCOLL, J., concur.

VOUTSINAS, J., taking no part.