Opinion
2004-722 S CR.
Decided October 20, 2005.
Appeal from judgments and amended judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Patchogue, Suffolk County (Christopher P. McGuire, J.), rendered April 28, 2004 and October 27, 2004 respectively. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of three violations of subdivisions (F) and one violation of subdivision (N) of section 55-43 of the Code of the Village of Patchogue, and amended judgments re-sentenced defendant.
Judgments and amended judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and McCABE, JJ.
Although defendant's notice of appeal, filed after the original sentence, was premature with respect to the judgment on re-sentence, we have entertained the appeal under the authority of CPL 460.10 ( see People v. McDowell, 255 AD2d 976; People v. Popolo, 31 AD2d 761).
Defendant was originally issued four appearance tickets. Prior to arraignment, the People filed "complaints" with the court charging defendant with three violations of subdivision (F) and one violation of subdivision (N) of section 55-43 of the Code of the Village of Patchogue. Since each of the "complaints" satisfied the criteria for an information ( see CPL 100.15, 100.40), the filing of same provided the court with jurisdiction over defendant ( see CPL 150.50).
The intent of the Legislature in enacting the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code was to set minimum safety standards for building construction and fire prevention (Executive Law § 371 [a], [b]), while the intent of the Village of Patchogue in enacting section 55-43 of its Code was to set aesthetic standards so as to maintain the value of the land and buildings, and protect the character and stability of the neighborhoods ( see Code of the Village of Patchogue § 55-43; see also Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 [ii] [a] [11]). Thus, section 55-43 was not preempted by the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code ( see generally People v. Cook, 34 NY2d 100).
The other issues raised by defendant on the appeal are similarly lacking in merit.