By: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Gonzalez, JJ. 15-030. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. DJAMILATOU GOUNWAGOU, def-app — Judgment of conviction (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered May 7, 2014, affirmed. Criminal Court dismissed one of the two second-degree harassment counts as multiplicitous, based upon its determination that a single offense was charged in the two counts (see People v. Alonzo, 16 NY3d 267, 269-270 [2011]). Contrary to defendant’s claim, this dismissal on multiplicity grounds did not constitute an amendment of the accusatory instrument in violation of CPL 100.45(3) (see People v. Frascone, 271 AD2d 333 [2000]; People v. Del–Debbio, 244 AD2d 195 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 925 [1998]). In point of fact, the proper remedy for multiplicitous counts is dismissal of all but one of the affected counts (see People v. VanGorden, 147 AD3d 1436, 1439 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1037 [2017]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
By: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Gonzalez, JJ. 18-348. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. TRAVIS GLADDEN, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Harold Adler, J.), rendered December 10, 2014, affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), it was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of reckless driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §1212). The credited police testimony established that defendant drove his dirt bike the wrong way down a one-way street while swerving in and out of traffic, prior to crashing into the front of an unmarked police car. The trial court could rationally conclude from the evidence that defendant “unreasonably interfere[d] with the free and proper use of the public highway” and unreasonably endangered the safety of those that were on the road at that time (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1212; see People v. Grogan, 260 NY 138, 144 [1932]; People v. Olsen, 124 AD3d 1084, 1086 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 933 [2015]). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the trial court’s determinations concerning credibility, including its acceptance of the police officers’ eye-witness testimony and rejection of defendant’s version of the incident. The discrepancies and inconsistencies in the police officers’ testimony were fully explored by defense counsel on cross-examination and we find no basis to disturb the court’s resolution of the issues (see People v. Jones, 79 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 954 [2011]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
