PEOPLE v. TAVARES (2025)

Judgment of conviction (Jeffrey M. Zimmerman, J.), rendered October 14, 2021, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument charging criminal mischief in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 145.00 [1]), assessed under the standard applicable to an information (see People v Hatton, 26 NY3d 364, 368 [2015]), was jurisdictionally valid because it set forth “nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof” (People v Wheeler, 34 NY3d 1134, 1135 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). The instrument recited that on multiple occasions over a specified two-week period, defendant was observed, via surveillance video, “setting fire to one trashcan” and “two vehicles,” causing one vehicle “to erupt in flames,” and “break[ing] the front and rear windows of nine (9) vehicles parked” in front of 1680 Carter Avenue. The instrument further stated that complainant Juan Hernandez, the “lawful custodian” of the vehicles, did not give defendant “permission or authority to cause damage to the aforementioned vehicles.”

Based on these facts, a fact-finder could certainly infer from the surrounding circumstances that defendant did not have the owners’ permission to damage the property at issue (see Matter of Leon B., 32 AD3d 796 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 803 [2007]; see also People v Borrero, 26 NY2d 430, 435-436 [1970]; Matter of Kevin B., 128 AD2d 63, 70 [1987], affd sub nom. Matter of Timothy L., 71 NY2d 835 [1988]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.