People v Seye (Ibra)

[*1] People v Seye (Ibra) 2013 NY Slip Op 51046(U) Decided on July 2, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 2, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Torres, Shulman, JJ
570447/11.

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

against

Ibra Seye, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered May 6, 2011, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered May 6, 2011, affirmed.

Defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument is lacking in merit. The information — comprising the misdemeanor complaint and supporting deposition of a representative of the municipal trademark owner — alleged that at a specified time and location police observed defendant "display and offer for sale approximately fifteen FDNY and NYPD t-shirts"; identified and distinguished the characteristics of the genuine and counterfeit trademarks; and stated that the allegedly counterfeit trademarks appearing on the t-shirts were registered and in use. These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant committed third-degree trademark counterfeiting (see Penal Law § 165.71; People v Zhang, 14 Misc 3d 82, 83 [2007]), lv denied 8 NY3d 951 [2007]). The accusatory instrument properly set forth the People's mens rea theory (compare People v Hong Wu, 81 AD3d 849, 850 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 796 [2011]) and, for purposes of our threshold, pleading-stage inquiry, provided sufficient facts to support a finding that, as alleged, defendant acted with the intent "to evade a lawful restriction" on the sale or distribution of goods (see Penal Law § 165.71; see generally People v Levy, 15 NY3d 510, 517 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 02, 2013