PEOPLE v. LAJARA (2018)

Judgment of conviction (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered July 23, 2014, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. The instrument recites that defendant stated that he “spray painted” his “unique” graffiti tag “LIFE” on the wall of two separate properties in Manhattan; that the deponent police officer observed photos of four other locations - two walls, a fence and a gate - in Manhattan, and observed the same, unique “LIFE” graffiti tag spray painted at these locations; and that the officer knew that defendant did not have permission to spray paint his graffiti tag on these locations “because [he] observed photos of the above mentioned tags and the size, location, and styles are entirely inconsistent with legitimate permission or authority.” Based on these allegations, a fact-finder could certainly infer from the surrounding circumstances that defendant did not have the owners' permission to mark the properties at issue with graffiti (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 Shimon O., 34 AD3d 817 [2006]; 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.