Opinion
February 25, 1980
Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated September 10, 1979, as dismissed, with leave to resubmit, four counts of an indictment charging defendant with tampering with public records in the first degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, forgery in the third degree, and obstructing governmental administration. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from. Contrary to the conclusion of the County Court, the disjunctive pleading of words with a similar meaning in the counts charging defendant with tampering with public records and falsifying business records was not a fatal defect (see People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589; People v. Abrams, 21 Ill. App.3d 734; State v. Jones, 242 N.C. 563; State v. Whitt, 3 Ohio App.2d 278). However, the "record" referred to in the indictment is a "transition piece" (a section of a manhole) marked by the manufacturer with identifying markings. The fact that inspectors hired by the county referred to those markings in their daily log and inspection records, does not render the "transition piece" and its markings a public or a business record (see Penal Law, § 175.00, 175.25 Penal; People v. Bel Air Equip. Corp., 46 A.D.2d 773, affd 39 N.Y.2d 48). Moreover, the concealment of the markings on the transition piece cannot be considered forgery (see People v. Levitan, 49 N.Y.2d 87; People v Cannarozzo, 62 A.D.2d 503, affd 48 N.Y.2d 687). Gibbons, J.P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.