Opinion
No. 570745/12.
04-20-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Papa CAMARA, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment of conviction (Michelle A. Armstrong, J.), rendered May 8, 2012, affirmed.
In view of defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014] ). So viewed, the accusatory instrument—comprising the misdemeanor complaint and supporting depositions of the arresting officer and two representatives of the trademark owner—was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of the charged offense of trademark counterfeiting in the third degree (see Penal Law § 165.71 ). For purposes of our threshold, pleading stage inquiry, the accusatory instrument sufficiently alleged that the twenty handbags displayed and offered for sale by defendant, which bore trademarks of Louis Vuitton, were counterfeit, based upon several specifically enumerated features distinguishing them from genuine Louis Vuitton handbags, and that the allegedly counterfeit trademarks appearing on the handbags were registered and in use (see People v. Ndiaye, 44 Misc.3d 135[A], 2014 N.Y. Slip Op 51208[U] [App Term, 1st Dept.2014] ; People v. Wele, 41 Misc.3d 133[A], 2013 N.Y. Slip Op 51804[U] [App Term, 1st Dept.2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1044 [2013] ; People v. Guo Zhang, 14 Misc.3d 82 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007] ). The court thus had jurisdiction over defendant and was authorized to accept defendant's plea to disorderly conduct, “a lesser crime not included in the accusatory instrument” (see People v. Keizer, 100 N.Y.2d 114, 119 [2003] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur