PEOPLE v. AHMED (2021)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant was charged with unlawful solicitation of ground transportation services at an airport (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1220-b) and, after a nonjury trial, he was found guilty of the charge.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1220-b (1) provides:

“No person shall unlawfully solicit ground transportation services at an airport. A person unlawfully solicits ground transportation services at an airport, when, at an airport, such person, without being authorized to do so by the airport operator, or without having made a prior agreement to provide ground transportation services to a specific patron, engages or offers to engage in any business, trade or commercial transaction involving the rendering to another person of any ground transportation services from such airport.”

On appeal, defendant contends that it was the People's burden to present legally sufficient evidence to prove that he or his employer was not authorized to solicit ground transportation services at LaGuardia Airport on the date of the alleged offense, and that the People failed to do so.

At the trial, a Port Authority police officer testified that, on February 17, 2017, in front of the arrival area of Terminal B at LaGuardia Airport, he had observed defendant offer a family of four a ride to Manhattan in exchange for $75. He further testified that, when processing defendant's arrest, he had found a written trespass warning in defendant's file. A second Port Authority police officer testified that, on July 28, 2016, he had issued a trespass warning to defendant and had orally informed defendant that if he got caught soliciting at the airport again, he would be charged with criminal trespass in the third degree. The written trespass warning was admitted into evidence. We find that this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish that defendant had unlawfully solicited ground transportation services in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1220-b (see People v. Rosario, 62 Misc 3d 147[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50219[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]). In view of the foregoing, we need not decide whether it was the People's burden to prove that defendant was not authorized to solicit ground transportation services since, in any event, his lack of authorization was proven by virtue of the trespass warning, which clearly negated the possibility that defendant had been authorized to do so (see id.).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.