By: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.17-401. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. DAVION T., def-app — Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered April 6, 2017, modified, on the law, to vacate defendant’s conviction of possession of a box cutter in a public place by a person under 21 and to dismiss the count of the accusatory instrument relating thereto and, as modified, affirmed.With respect to the conviction of third-degree criminal trespass, the accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Allegations that defendant entered the subway station “beyond the turnstiles, which is an area enclosed by the turnstiles and gates in a manner designed to exclude those who do not pay the required fare, by jumping over the turnstiles” and that “defendant did not have permission or authority to enter beyond the turnstiles without paying,” were facially sufficient to support the charged offense (see People v. Phillips, 53 Misc 3d 151[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51693[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1149 [2017]).With respect to the conviction of possession of a box cutter in a public place by a person under 21 (see New York City Administrative Code §10-134.1[e]), we agree with defendant that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective. The instrument failed to contain nonhearsay allegations to support an essential element of the offense, namely, that defendant was a “person under twenty-one years of age” when he allegedly possessed the box cutter in a public place (Administrative Code §10-134.1[e]; see generally Matter of Devon V., 83 AD3d 469 [2011]). Contrary to the People’s claim, the mere “(M17)” notation next to defendant’s name in the caption of the accusatory instrument was not a nonhearsay evidentiary fact establishing the age element of the offense (see CPL 100.40[1][c]).In view of our disposition, we need not reach defendant’s remaining contention.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.November 27, 2018
17-340. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. ALEJANDRO FRANCO, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Julio Rodriguez, III, J.), rendered November 9, 2016, affirmed.The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the trial court’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of inconsistencies in the testimony, the complainant’s inability to recall minor details and her possible motivation to fabricate portions of her testimony. The court properly exercised its discretion in granting the People’s request to amend the superseding information to correctly identify the deponent as complainant Yaritza Cortez (see CPL 170.35[1][a]), the individual who, in fact, signed said superceding information. In granting the amendment, the court correctly noted that the superseding information was obviously intended to be a “first party” information.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.November 27, 2018
