PEOPLE v. OBANDO (2020)

Judgment of conviction (Myrna Socorro, J.), rendered April 27, 2018, affirmed.

The misdemeanor information was not jurisdictionally defective. The factual allegations establish “every element” of the offenses charged, including petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and “defendant's commission thereof” (CPL 100.40[1][c]). The instrument recited that on August 1, 2017 at approximately 10:50 a.m., in front of a specified Bronx County street address, defendant was observed via video surveillance “remov[ing] and tak[ing] the passenger side mirror” from complainant's vehicle, without permission or authority from complainant, the vehicle's “lawful custodian.” These allegations provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and avoid double jeopardy (see People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]). Contrary to defendant's primary contention, any question whether he was the individual viewed on the surveillance footage was a matter that could have been raised at trial, not by insistence that the information was jurisdictionally defective (see People v. Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.