Court Opinion

ID: 4160534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-14 19:11:39.669631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:25.021524
License: Public Domain

<partyblock> 

<br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, 

<br><br>against<br><br>Abdoulaye Gaye, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br> 

 

 

 

<p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered December 17, 2012, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of two counts of attempted trademark counterfeiting in the third degree and two counts of unlicensed general vending, and imposing sentence.</p> 

 

 

 

 

<p>Per Curiam.</p> 

<p>Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered December 17, 2012, affirmed.</p> 

<p>The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (<a href="../2007/2007_09814.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342</a> [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determination concerning credibility. The credited evidence established that on two separate occasions, defendant offered for sale handbags that bore counterfeit Louis Vuitton and Coach trademarks (<i>see</i> Penal Law  165.71; 165.70[2][b]; <a href="../2010/2010_08387.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Levy</i>, 15 NY3d 510</a> [2010]; <i>People v Ouedraogo</i>, 39 Misc 3d 145[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50822[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013], <i>lv denied</i> 22 NY3d 958 [2013]; <i>People v Wele, </i>41 Misc 3d 133[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51804[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013], <i>lv denied </i>22 NY3d 1044 [2013]).</p> 

<p>Defendant's present contention that the trademark counterfeiting charges were duplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review, inasmuch as he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on this ground (<a href="../2011/2011_07306.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Becoats</i>, 17 NY3d 643</a>, 651 [2011], <i>cert. denied</i> 132 S.Ct. 1970 [2012]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we reject it. Each disputed count charged a single offense.</p> 

<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p> 

<p>I concur I concur I concur</p> 

<br>Decision Date: April 14, 2017 

 

 

<br><br><div align="center"> 

<form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"> 

<input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"> 

</form> 

</div> 

 

 

</partyblock>