Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Cesar Quinones, J.H.O.), rendered April 17, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of failing to comply with a park sign.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant was charged with violating Rules of City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation (56 RCNY) § 1-03 (c) (2), which provides as follows:
"No person shall fail to comply with or obey any instruction, direction, regulation, warning, or prohibition, written or printed, displayed or appearing on any park sign, except such sign may be disregarded upon order by a Police Officer or designated Department employee."
The information alleged that a sign in Betsy Park indicated that the park closes after 9 P.M. and that the complainant observed defendant in the park after dark at 2:06 A.M. on December 15, 2005.

The information is legally sufficient since the factual portion thereof contains nonhearsay allegations which establish, if true, each and every element of the offense charged (CPL 100.15, 100.40; People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]). The People were not required to plead factual allegations to the effect that defendant was not ordered to disobey the park sign by a police officer or a designated department employee since this exemption was in the nature of a "proviso" rather than an "exception" (see People v Santana, 7 NY3d 234 [2006]; People v Devinny, 227 NY 397 [1919]; see also People v Dudley, 289 AD2d 503 [2001]).

Prior to trial, defendant signed a consent to have a trial before a judicial hearing officer. Contrary to defendant's contention, we find that defendant gave a valid written consent to a trial [*2]before a judicial hearing officer. Moreover, defendant was represented by counsel who actively participated during trial without raising an objection to the trial before a judicial hearing officer (see Matter of Heather J., 244 AD2d 762 [1997]).

Defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was not preserved for appellate review (People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56 [2001]). In any event, the evidence adduced at trial established that defendant disobeyed a park sign by being in the park at 2:06 A.M. on December 15, 2005.

Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of violating Rules of City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation (56 RCNY) § 1-03 (c) (2) is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 29, 2008