| People v Abdurraheem |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02804 [94 AD3d 569] |
| April 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Muhammad Abdurraheem, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Clara H. Salzberg of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), rendered January 7, 2008,convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and sentencing him to aconditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.
The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. The misdemeanor informationincluded the deposition of the arresting officer, which alleged that for approximately 10 minutes,defendant stood immediately next to a table on which t-shirts were "spread out," and thatdefendant was "arranging and handling said merchandise." The table was "in the vicinity" of agiven private address and was "open to public view." When approached, defendant stated that hedid not need a license because he "work[ed] at the store."
Giving these facts "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People vCasey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find that the accusatory instrument sufficiently allegedunlicensed general vending (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-453). "[A]s a matterof common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), the informationadequately alleged that defendant engaged in the conduct required for acting as a general vendor(see Administrative Code § 20-452 [b]). The alleged conduct, taken together withdefendant's statement to the officer, negated any noncommercial explanation (see People vSylla, 154 Misc 2d 112, 115-116 [Crim Ct, NY County 1992]; People v Diouf, 153Misc 2d 887, [*2]889-890 [Crim Ct, NY County 1992]).Likewise, the information, read as a whole, supported the inference that defendant was acting in a"public space" (see Administrative Code § 20-452 [d]). Concur—Tom, J.P.,Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.