Appeal by defendant from judgments of the City Court of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (R. McGaw, J.), rendered July 11, 2002, convicting her of two counts of possession of an open container of alcohol in a public place (City of Poughkeepsie Code § 14-19) and one count of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20), and imposing sentences of 15 days' incarceration on each charge to run consecutively.

Judgments of conviction unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the sentences imposed to time served; as so modified, affirmed.

Initially, we note that the record indicated that defendant was aware of the charges against her and able to communicate with counsel and participate in her defense. Thus, the denial of defendant's request for an order of examination to determine her fitness to proceed to trial constituted a proper exercise of its discretion (see CPL 730.30; People v Russel, 74 NY2d 901). Additionally, the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see CPL 470.15 [4] [b]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). The delegation of the prosecution of the instant offenses to the police officers who issued the informations and the examination of said officers by the court did not constitute error (see People v Soddano, 86 NY2d 727, 728; see also People v DeLeyden, 10 NY2d 293; People v Mendes, 3 NY2d 120, 121). We further note that inasmuch as the factual allegations in the accusatory instruments which charged defendant with violations of the City of Poughkeepsie Code were sufficient to permit defendant to prepare a defense and were adequately detailed to prevent her from being tried twice for the same offenses, the failure to allege that the [*2]locations were a public place, does not render them jurisdictionally defective (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360; People v Zambounis, 251 NY 94; People v Shea, 68 Misc 2d 271). As to the sentences imposed, it is our opinion that under the circumstances herein the interest of justice will best be served by reducing same to time served. The other issues raised on the appeal were considered and, in our opinion, offered no legal basis to overturn the judgments of conviction or remand the matter for resentencing.