Opinion
No. 570456/11.
2012-12-24
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,— v. Karl DICKIE, Defendant–Appellant.
In consolidated criminal actions, defendant appeals from two judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), each rendered May 3, 2011, upon his pleas of guilty, convicting him of unlicensed general vending, and imposing sentence.
Present: SCHOENFELD, J.P., SHULMAN, HUNTER, JR., JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Judgments of conviction (Abraham L. Clott, J.), rendered May 3, 2011, affirmed.
We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instruments charging
him with unlicensed general vending ( see Administrative Code of City of New York § 29–453). The factual portion of the information relating to the April 2, 2011 incident detailed defendant's involvement in the completed street transaction witnessed by police that day “in front of 336 Canal Street” in Manhattan, and the factual portion of the superseding information relating to the March 5, 2011 incident stated that defendant was observed “showing” specified merchandise (a handbag and four pairs of sunglasses) to “numerous people” “at 310 Canal Street” in Manhattan, and that on each occasion defendant did not display and could not produce the requisite license. “[G]iven a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” (People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 360 [2000] ), the facts set forth in the People's pleadings adequately alleged that defendant engaged in the conduct required for acting as a general vendor ( see Administrative Code § 20–452[b]; People v. Abdurraheem, 94 AD3d 569, 570 [2012],lv denied19 NY3d 970 [2012] ). Further, the accusatory instruments, read as a whole, supported the inference that defendant was acting in a “public space” ( see Administrative Code § 20–452[d]; Abdurraheem at 570).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur