People v Missouri (Ollie)

[*1] People v Missouri (Ollie) 2014 NY Slip Op 50524(U) Decided on March 21, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 21, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and MARANO, JJ
2010-1172 N CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Ollie F. Missouri, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Margaret C. Reilly, J.), rendered April 21, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of petit larceny.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). On appeal, defendant contends that the information is jurisdictionally defective because the factual allegations therein fail to establish every element of petit larceny.

An information, together with any supporting deposition accompanying or filed in connection therewith (CPL 100.20), must allege, among other things, facts of an evidentiary nature establishing, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof (CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [1]; see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228—229 [2009]; People v Jones, 9 NY3d 259, 261 [2007]). The failure to comply with these requirements is a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect (see People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]). While the factual allegations "should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), they must suffice to "give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and ... [be] adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense" (id.). Contrary to defendant's contention, the allegations herein, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (id.), were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and that defendant had committed the offense charged (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d at 228—229). Moreover, the allegations provided defendant with sufficient notice to prepare a defense, and were adequately detailed to prevent defendant from being tried twice for the same offense (id. at 230; People v Casey, 95 NY2d at 360).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). While defendant gave a different account of the events from that presented by the People's witnesses, the determination of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, is for the trier of fact, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Great weight should be accorded the jury's determination, and it should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). We find no basis to disturb the judgment of conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Marano, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: March 21, 2014