People v. Taffet

Decision Date22 February 2016
Docket Number2014-2297 S CR
Citation2016 NY Slip Op 50208 (U)
PartiesThe People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jordan Taffet, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

2016 NY Slip Op 50208(U)

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jordan Taffet, Appellant.

2014-2297 S CR

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Decided on February 22, 2016


PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and CONNOLLY, JJ.

Appeal from four judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Ocean Beach, Suffolk County (William D. Wexler, J.), rendered October 6, 2014. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of violating Village of Ocean Beach Code §§ 87-9, 87-10 and 96-1, respectively, with regard to premises located at 440 Dehnhoff Walk, and Village of Ocean Beach Code § 127-4 (A), with regard to premises located at 300 Cottage Walk.

ORDERED that the judgments convicting defendant of violating Village of Ocean Beach Code §§ 87-9, 87-10 and 96-1 are reversed, on the law, the accusatory instruments charging these offenses are dismissed, and the fines therefor, if paid, are remitted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment convicting defendant of violating Village of Ocean Beach Code § 127-4 (A) is affirmed.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant acted as a rental agent for houses located at 440 Dehnhoff Walk and 300 Cottage Walk on Fire Island, in the Village of Ocean Beach, Suffolk County, leasing these houses to groups of people for short periods of time during the summer of 2013. Defendant appeals from four separate judgments, convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of violating Village of Ocean Beach Code § 87-9 (no fire extinguisher in residential structure at 440 Dehnhoff Walk), Village of Ocean Beach Code § 87-10 (no smoke detectors in residential structure at 440 Dehnhoff Walk), Village of Ocean Beach Code § 96-1 (permitting garbage to be placed outside property at 440 Dehnhoff Walk during hours of collection other than those determined by the Board of Trustees), and Village of Ocean Beach Code § 127-4 (A) (renting a dwelling unit at 300 Cottage Walk for use or occupancy without a permit), respectively.

Defendant contends that the informations charging him with the four offenses were facially insufficient, his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdicts of guilt were against the weight of the evidence, he was denied due process and a fair trial, the Justice Court should have recused itself, and the applicable village code provisions are unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

To be facially sufficient, an information must contain nonhearsay allegations of fact of an evidentiary character which establish, if true, every element of the offense charged (see CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [1] [c]; People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]; People v Pampalone, 32 Misc 3d 130[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51311[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]). These requirements are jurisdictional (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009]; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354 [2000]; People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]; People v Dumas, 68 NY2d at

Page 2

731), and the failure to meet these requirements may be asserted at any time, with the exception of the requirement of nonhearsay allegations, which, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, is waived if it is not timely raised by motion in the trial court ( see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354). The law does not require that the most precise words or phrases which most clearly express the thought be used in an information, but only that the offense be sufficiently alleged so that the defendant can prepare himself for trial, and so that he will not be tried again for the same offense ( see People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]; People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004]; People v Casey, 95 NY2d at 360). The factual allegations of an information should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading ( see People v Casey, 95 NY2d at 360).

The information regarding the fire extinguisher violation was facially insufficient. The instrument alleged that defendant allowed the "above residence [440 Dehnhoff Walk] to be occupied without a valid fire...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT