Respondent appealed from a judgment convicted it of converting a single-family residence to a commercial use. A building inspector and code enforcement officer issued a violation of notice notifying respondent it violated the zoning code after personally observing the violation of the conversion of a single family unit transformed into commercial use. Respondent moved for dismissal arguing the information was facially insufficient as the allegation as to ownership was hearsay, but the motion was denied, and respondent was found guilty after trial. The allegation claimed that upon personal inspection the inspector observed auto glass stored inside and taxi cars parked in the driveway. Upon information and belief it was alleged respondent was the owner of the property and responsible for the subject conditions described. Respondent argued the information was jurisdictionally defective as the evidence was not legally sufficient to prove its guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and was against the weight of the evidence. The panel ruled as the information alleged upon information and belief that respondent was the owner of the subject property—which constituted hearsay—the information was jurisdictionally defective, the conviction reversed and accusatory instrument dismissed.