Opinion
2005-1713 N CR.
Decided May 29, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (David Gross, J., at trial; Vito M. DeStefano, J., at sentencing), rendered October 13, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of petit larceny.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and MOLIA, JJ.
Defendant contends that the information is facially insufficient under CPL 100.40 (1) (c) because it fails to provide factual allegations that "establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" ( id.) This claim is jurisdictional and nonwaivable, and does not have to be preserved in order to raise a question of law ( see People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133). We therefore reach it despite defendant's failure to raise it in the lower court. We find, however, that the allegations of the information meet this requirement of CPL 100.40 (1) (c) ( see Penal Law § 155.25; People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 321; see also People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 118). We note that defendant raises no issue with respect to the non-hearsay requirement of CPL 100.40 (1) (c), which is non-jurisdictional and waivable ( see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354).
Defendant has failed to preserve his claim that the trial evidence was legally insufficient ( see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273; People v Sadler , 49 AD3d 670 ), and we decline to reach this issue in the interest of justice. Were we to reach the issue, we would find the evidence legally sufficient. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that there is a "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury" ( People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 409). Finally, giving "great deference to the jury's verdict" ( People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 , 645) even as we conduct our own review of the weight of the evidence ( see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490) in terms of the elements of the offense as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 ), we reject defendant's argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.