PEOPLE v. HUTT (2019)

Judgment of conviction (Guy H. Mitchell, J. at plea; Kate Paek, J. at sentencing), rendered March 13, 2017, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Allegations that defendant paid for food in a restaurant with a specified numbered credit card, and that the owner of the credit card stated that defendant "did not have permission or authority to take or possess said credit card number or to use it to make purchases," were sufficient to charge defendant with fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property (see Penal Law § 165.45[2]; People v. Peterson, 216 AD2d 10 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 800 [1995]; People v. Martinez, 22 Misc 3d 131[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50138[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2009]). Defendant's remaining challenges to the accusatory instrument were forfeited by operation of law as a consequence of his guilty plea. By pleading guilty, defendant not only waived any hearsay defect in the instrument (see People v. Keizer, 100 NY2d 114, 122 [2003]), but also any claim that the information was based on information and belief without disclosing the source thereof (see People v. Scott, 3 NY2d 148, 152 [1957]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.