The court, properly taking judicial notice of the fact that the Division for Youth is a State agency (Executive Law art 19-G) that contracts with private agencies such as Boys Town to maintain detention facilities (Executive Law § 501 Exec. [6], [7]), correctly found that appellants escape from the custody of the Boys Town caseworker met the statutory criteria for escape in the third degree (Penal Law § 205.00; § 205.05 Penal), since the caseworker was "exercising the functions of [a] public officer or employee" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (15)(b).
The petition charging escape was jurisdictionally sufficient despite the lack of an attached certified copy of the court order placing appellant in the custody of Boys Town, since the supporting deposition included a statement that appellant had been remanded to Boys Town pursuant to a specified Family Court order, and this statement is regarded "as having been made upon the knowledge of the person verifying the pleading" (CPLR 3023).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.