By: Edmead, P.J., Higgitt, McShan, JJ. 15-301. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. CHRISTOPHER HANCOCK, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered February 10, 2014, affirmed. The verdict convicting defendant of criminal trespass in the third degree (see Penal Law §140.10[a]) 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. The credited police testimony established that defendant entered a New York City subway platform unlawfully by jumping over a turnstile without paying the required fare and without permission (see People v. Alvarez, 162 AD3d 596 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1108 [2018]; People v. Harvey, 57 Misc 3d 156[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51626[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1115 [2018]). Defendant’s “actions were incompatible with those of a member of some category of persons having permission to ride the subway without paying, and the evidence supported the conclusion that he had no such permission” (People v. Alvarez, 162 AD3d at 596). All concur THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
By: Edmead, P.J., Higgitt, McShan, JJ. 15-302. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. LARRY BENNETT, def-app — Judgment of conviction under docket number 2014BX025869 (Kim A. Wilson, J.), rendered January 22, 2015, affirmed. Appeal from judgments of conviction under docket numbers 2014BX035135 and 2014BX037081 (Kim A. Wilson, J.), rendered January 22, 2015, dismissed as academic. In view of defendant’s knowing waiver of the right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instruments must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v. Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the instrument under docket number 2014BX025869 was jurisdictionally valid because the factual allegations provide reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth-degree (see Penal Law §221.40) by alleging, in relevant part, that at a specified time and street location, an undercover officer handed defendant ten dollars in prerecorded buy money in exchange for one ziplock bag containing marijuana (see People v. Roman, 60 Misc 3d 127[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50916[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 941 [2018]). These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes since they provided adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy (see People v. Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142 [2014]). Any question regarding how the police identified defendant as the perpetrator was a matter to be raised at trial, not by insistence that the instrument was jurisdictionally defective (see People v. Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 577 [2004]). Defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree (see Penal Law §221.10) under docket numbers 2014BX035135 and 2014BX037081 have been automatically “vacated and dismissed” and rendered “legally invalid,” by operation of CPL 160.50(5), which became effective on August 28, 2019. Thus, this appeal from said convictions must be dismissed as academic (see People v. Taite, 65 Misc 3d 137[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51671[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1082 [2019]). All concur THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
