People v Ouedrago (Relwinde)

[*1] People v Ouedrago (Relwinde) 2013 NY Slip Op 50822(U) Decided on May 21, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 21, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Hunter Jr., JJ
570078/11.

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

against

Relwinde Ouedrago, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered November 16, 2010, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of unlicensed general vending and attempted trademark counterfeiting, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered November 16, 2010, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The arresting officer's observations of the defendant's conduct before, during and after the completed street transaction established probable cause for defendant's arrest.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Again, no basis is shown for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. The elements of unlicensed general vending and attempted trademark counterfeiting were established by the credited police and investigative expert testimony that defendant, without the requisite license, was observed standing on Canal Street while holding a shopping bag ultimately found to contain, among other items, some 20 watches bearing Rolex trademarks and 14 sunglasses; that he spoke with and handed a watch and a pair of sunglasses to a passerby, after which defendant put "something" into his wallet; that the materials used to produce the watches recovered from defendant's bag were "very light" and "improper"; and that the counterfeit "Rolex" trademark appearing on the watches is registered and in use (see People v Abdurraheem, 94 AD3d 569 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 970 [2012]; People v Brown, 278 AD2d 177 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 798 [2001]; People v Straman, 27 Misc 3d 144[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51079[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 856 [2010]).

Inasmuch as defendant's commission of the charged offenses was adequately pleaded in the original information, his jurisdictional challenge to the subsequently filed prosecutor's information is lacking in merit (see People v Inserra, 4 NY3d 30 [2004]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 21, 2013