People v Dalton (Howard)

[*1] People v Dalton (Howard) 2015 NY Slip Op 51358(U) Decided on September 23, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 23, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman J.P., Hunter Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570212/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, -

against

Howard Dalton Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Richard Ross, J.H.O.), rendered February 21, 2012, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of violating New York City Parks and Recreation Department Rules (56 RCNY) § 1-03(c)(1), and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgement of conviction (Richard Ross, J.H.O.), rendered February 21, 2012, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of failing to comply with a lawful direction or command of a police officer (see 56 RCNY 1-03 [c][1]), was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, which showed that defendant failed to comply with a police officer's command to move his food vending cart from the plaza of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, after being informed that the cart's placement violated certain footage restrictions contained in General Business Law § 35-a(7)(i). Defendant's primary contention on appeal - that the restrictions contained in General Business Law § 35-a do not apply to "food" vendors and therefore, the police officer's command was not "lawful" - is unavailing (see Matter of Rossi v New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 127 AD3d 463 [2015]). For the same reasons, we reject defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument.

Defendant failed to preserve his present contention that the trial court acted as a prosecutor and deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial (see, People v Kello, 96 NY2d 740 [2001]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 23, 2015