People v All Is. Taxi

[*1] People v All Is. Taxi 2007 NY Slip Op 51282(U) [16 Misc 3d 129(A)] Decided on June 25, 2007 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 25, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2005-2012 N CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

All Island Taxi, Appellant, -and- LAWRENCE BLESSINGER, JR., Defendant.

Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Mineola, Nassau County (John P. O'Shea, Jr., J.), rendered November 15, 2005. The judgments, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant All Island Taxi of eight charges of violating section 52.2.13 of the Code of the Incorporated Village of Mineola.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of eight charges of violating section 52.2.13 of the Code of the Incorporated Village of Mineola in that on each occasion set forth in the eight informations, it parked a private livery van in an area designated by the Village of Mineola as a taxi stand in contravention of said section. On appeal, defendant contends that the People failed to properly identify as a taxi stand the areas in which defendant's vehicles were parked and that the People failed to present evidence that defendant operated the vehicles for compensation [*2]on the dates and times stated in the informations.

Initially, it should be noted that defendant's contentions on appeal are, in essence, a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, which, by defendant's failure to move for dismissal on said ground during the trial, has not been preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; 470.15 [4]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 18-20 [1995]). Nevertheless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of the violations beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]).

Section 52.2.13 of the Code of the Incorporated Village of Mineola states:
"PRIVATE LIVERY VAN - A motor vehicle which is manufactured and equipped in such a manner as to provide a seating capacity of not fewer than six (6) and not more than fifteen (15) passengers, not including the driver, which is used for the transportation of persons for compensation. Such vehicle shall not be permitted to stand at any taxi stand designated by the Village of Mineola."
The Code Enforcement Officer testified that, at the times, dates and locations alleged in the informations, he observed a private livery van marked with defendant's name and telephone number standing in a taxi stand designated by the Village of Mineola. Photographs were also admitted into evidence. Contrary to defendant's contention, the People, to establish a violation of the Code provision, did not have to prove that the private livery van was being operated for compensation at the time of the violation. We note that defendant's witness admitted that all of defendant's vans have taxi licenses and that defendant engages in the business of charging passengers for transportation. In view of the foregoing, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.