PEOPLE v. GUO ZHANG

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. GUO ZHANG, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: January 31, 2007

Present:  McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, SCHOENFELD, JJ. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Richard Nahas and Gary S. Snitow of counsel), for appellant. Legal Aid Society, New York City (Steven Banks and Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for respondent.

Order (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), reversed, on the law, motion to dismiss denied, accusatory instrument reinstated, and matter remanded for further proceedings.

We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging trademark counterfeiting in the third degree (see Penal Law § 165.71).   The information-comprising the misdemeanor complaint and supporting depositions of the arresting police officer and a representative of the trademark owner-alleged that at a specified time and location police observed defendant “display and offer for sale more than 10 ․ handbags”;  identified and distinguished the characteristics of the genuine and counterfeit trademarks;  and stated that the allegedly counterfeit “Louis Vuitton” trademarks appearing on the handbags is registered and in use.   These factual allegations, “given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” (People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 360, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233 [2000] ), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant committed the offense of third-degree trademark counterfeiting (see People v. Reyes, 9 Misc.3d 136(A), 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 51699[U], 2005 WL 2709173 [App. Term, 1st Dept. 2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 885, 808 N.Y.S.2d 587, 842 N.E.2d 485 [2005];  People v. Lynch, 8 Misc.3d 126(A), 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50894[U], 2005 WL 1397469 [App. Term, 1st Dept.], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 807, 803 N.Y.S.2d 36, 836 N.E.2d 1159 [2005] ).   At the pleading stage, the sworn allegation that defendant displayed and offered for sale more than 10 handbags is “sufficiently evidentiary in character” to support the sale or offer for sale element of the charged offense (id.;   see generally People v. Allen, 92 N.Y.2d 378, 385, 681 N.Y.S.2d 216, 703 N.E.2d 1229 [1998] [“bare boned” allegation that defendant “did solicit” a marihuana sale held sufficient to support criminal solicitation charge] ).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

PER CURIAM.