v.

HARRY ROESTENBERG, Appellant.

Argued By: Carol Castillo (counsel for the appellant); Delores Heredia (counsel for the respondent)

Judgment Reversed / Accusatory Instruments Dismissed: Andrew J. DiPaola, P.J.; Thomas M. Stark & Angelo J. Ingrassia, JJ.

DECISION OF THE COURT

<SM-1>

Appeal by defendant from judgments of the District Court, Nassau County (S.A. Bucaria, J. at Plea; L.S. Clark, J. at sentence) rendered on March 27, 1995 convicting him of two counts of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 215.50[3]) and one count of Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 240.30[1]) and imposing sentence.

Judgments of conviction unanimously reversed on the law, accusatory instruments dismissed and fines remitted.

The accusatory instruments failed to allege facts which establish that defendant had knowledge of the order of protection at the time he committed the acts charged (see, People v. Jean-Mary, NYLJ March 21, 1995, App Term 9th & 10th <SM-2> Jud Dists; People v. Galvin, NYLJ December 8, 1995, App term 9th & 10th Jud Dists). In view of the foregoing, the accusatory instruments are jurisdictionally defective as to the counts charging criminal contempt (see, CPL 100.40[1]; CPL 100.15; see also, People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133). In addition, the nonhearsay allegations regarding the charge of aggravated harassment were insufficient to establish each and every element of the offense charged and that information was therefore also jurisdictionally defective (see, People v. Alejandro, supra).

__