People v Rose

[*1] People v Rose 2011 NY Slip Op 21445 Decided on December 13, 2011 Criminal Court Of The City Of New York, New York County Nervo, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 13, 2011
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

The People of the State of New York

against

Terella Rose, Defendant.



2011NY052864



The People were represented by Cyrus Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York County.

Defendant was represented by The Legal Aid Society of the City of New York.

Frank P. Nervo, J.

The court considers the following papers on this motion:

Defendant's notice of motion and affirmation in support of motion, numbers 1 and 2.

The People's affirmation in in opposition to the motion, number 3.

Based on its consideration of the papers submitted on this motion, it is

ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss the information for facial insufficiency

(CPL §§ 100.40 and 170.30) is granted and the information is dismissed, and it is further

ORDERED that the remainder of the motion, requests for Mapp,Huntley and Sandoval hearings and for discovery is denied as academic, and it is further

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, sealing is stayed for a period of thirty days from the date of this order.

Defendant moves to dismiss the information charging defendant with a violation of Penal Law

§ 275.35, failure to disclose the origin of a recording in the second degree.

The information signed by the arresting officer, quoting the statute's language, alleges that at [*2]5:25 PM, in front of 163 West 125th Street, " defendant, for commercial advantage, possessed for the purpose of offering for sale and rental a recording the outside cover of which did not clearly and conspicuously disclose the actual name and address of the manufacturer and principal artist."

The officer alleges that he recovered forty-nine digital video discs ( DVDs), inside DVD cases, from inside defendant's backpack.

Defendant argues that, "There are simply no allegations from which one could even circumstantially infer that the DVDs were posessed for a commercial purpose, or that they were offered for sale."

The People argue that the information "...make[s] out a prima facie case for the crime. Here, defendant possessed forty-nine (49) compact discs [sic] which each failed to disclose the origin of said recording. The sheer quantity of the compact discs [sic] that the defendant possessed shows his intent to commercially distribute said items."

Neither defendant nor the People cite any cases in support of their argument.

While the allegation that an accused possessed a large number of recordings may be a factor in determining intent to sell and thus whether the information is facially sufficient, ( cf. People v. Kane, 14 Misc.3rd 283), this factor, by itself, is not sufficient to state a prima facie case. In People v. Kane, id., the court noted that other "... factors include the manner in which the goods were displayed, the defendant's interaction with the public as well as the goods, the length of time that the defendant engaged in the conduct, and the time and place of the alleged conduct." (id. at 287) The court inferred that defendant's conduct, removing a bag containing the compact discs from under a trash bag concealed in a trash can, coupled with the large number of items, 141, and his statement that he was finished selling for the day, demonstrated an intent to sell.

Here, there are no allegations of any conduct by defendant. He did not furtively remove concealed items, there is no indication that his bag that allegedly contained the items was open, that he displayed the items in any manner indicating an intent to sell. While he may have possessed the DVDs, there are no facts in the information that allow the court to infer that the possession was for distribution and not merely personal use.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Dated: December 13, 2011 [*3]

____________________________

JCC