Opinion
2005-454 SCR, 2005-455 SCR.
Decided June 22, 2006.
Appeals from two judgments of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), rendered March 9, 2005. Each judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of violating section 198-120 (A) of the Code of the Town of Huntington.
On the court's own motion, appeals consolidated for purposes of disposition.
Judgments of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: ANGIOLILLO, J.P., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ.
Defendant's notices of appeal indicate that he is appealing from two judgments convicting him of violating section 198-10 (A) of the Code of the Town of Huntington. However, the record indicates that he was convicted of violations of former section 198-120 (A) (currently section 87-25 [A]) of the Code. In view of the inaccurate description of the judgments, this court, in the exercise of discretion, in the interest of justice, treats the notices of appeal as validly setting forth that defendant is appealing from the two judgments convicting him of violating former section 198-120 (A) ( see CPL 460.10).
The accusatory instruments in the case at bar alleged that defendant, on the dates and times alleged, violated section 198-120 (A) of the Code of the Town of Huntington in that he maintained a landscaping business in the subject premises without having obtained the requisite certificate of occupancy and/or certificate of permitted use. Since the allegations in the accusatory instruments contained facts alleging on personal knowledge that defendant maintained a landscaping business in the premises without having the requisite certificate, the accusatory instruments are legally sufficient ( see CPL 100.40; 100.15; see also People v. Zambounis, 251 NY 94; People v. Shea, 68 Misc 2d 271). In addition, we note that contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence and testimony presented at trial were sufficient to establish that defendant maintained a landscaping business in the premises without a certificate of occupancy and/or certificate of permitted use. In view of the foregoing, the judgments of conviction should be affirmed.
Angiolillo, J.P., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.