Opinion
No. 570078/11.
2013-05-21
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Relwinde OUEDRAOGO, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered November 16, 2010, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of unlicensed general vending and attempted trademark counterfeiting, and imposing sentence.
Present LOWE, III, P.J., SHULMAN, HUNTER Jr., JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of conviction (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered November 16, 2010, affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record ( see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761 [1977] ). The arresting officer's observations of the defendant's conduct before, during and after the completed street transaction established probable cause for defendant's arrest.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Again, no basis is shown for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. The elements of unlicensed general vending and attempted trademark counterfeiting were established by the credited police and investigative expert testimony that defendant, without the requisite license, was observed standing on Canal Street while holding a shopping bag ultimately found to contain, among other items, some 20 watches bearing Rolex trademarks and 14 sunglasses; that he spoke with and handed a watch and a pair of sunglasses to a passerby, after which defendant put “something” into his wallet; that the materials used to produce the watches recovered from defendant's bag were “very light” and “improper”; and that the counterfeit “Rolex” trademark appearing on the watches is registered and in use ( see People v. Abdurraheem, 94 A.D.3d 569 [2012],lv denied19 N.Y.3d 970 [2012];People v. Brown, 278 A.D.2d 177 [2000],lv denied96 N.Y.2d 798 [2001];People v. Straman, 27 Misc.3d 144[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 51079[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010], lv denied15 N.Y.3d 856 [2010] ).
Inasmuch as defendant's commission of the charged offenses was adequately pleaded in the original information, his jurisdictional challenge to the subsequently filed prosecutor's information is lacking in merit ( see People v. Inserra, 4 N.Y.3d 30 [2004] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.