People v Strachn (Kawahn)

[*1] People v Strachn (Kawahn) 2020 NY Slip Op 50078(U) Decided on January 27, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 27, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, J.
16-561

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Kawahn Strachn, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tamiko A. Amaker, J.), rendered March 30, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Tamiko A. Amaker, J.), rendered March 30, 2016, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00/170.20) was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348—349 [2007]). The evidence presented at trial by the People, which included the police officer's testimony that defendant bent a Metrocard along the magnetic strip in a manner that the officer knew, based on his training and experience, can obliterate the encoded data of the value remaining on the card, and then swiped the bent card in an attempt to gain access to the subway without paying the required fare, was sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Mattocks, 12 NY3d 326, 330 [2009]; People v McFarlane, 63 AD3d 634, 635 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 837 [2009]; People v Taylor, 50 AD3d 358 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 795 [2008]; cf. People v Ross, 163 AD3d 428 [2018]).

Nor was the accusatory instrument jurisdictionally defective. The instrument sufficiently alleged defendant's possession of a forged instrument, consisting of the bent MetroCard, as well as information from which his knowledge and intent could be inferred (see People v Mattocks, 12 NY3d at 330).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 27, 2020