People v. Dreyden

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dreyden

23 Misc. 3d 34

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 Misc. 3d 34 (People v. Dreyden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Dreyden, 23 Misc. 3d 34 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[35]*35OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01) in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging him with said offense as well as unlawful possession of marihuana (Penal Law § 221.05). On appeal, he challenges for the first time the jurisdictional sufficiency of the accusatory instrument as it relates to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, alleging, inter alia, that the “conclusory” reference in the factual part to the weapon in question as a gravity knife was insufficient (cf. Matter of Rodney J., 83 NY2d 503, 507 [1994]).

In our opinion, the accusatory instrument did not have to contain the detailed definition set forth in Penal Law § 265.00 (5), nor did it have to state that the knife was operational, as the term “gravity knife” is self defining (see People v William, 191 Misc 2d 293 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 682 [2002]). While proof that the object was a gravity knife, as that term is defined in Penal Law § 265.00 (5), and that it was operational is required for conviction (see People v Zuniga, 303 AD2d 773, 774 [2003]), such detailed allegations are unnecessary to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of an accusatory instrument (see CPL 100.15, 100.40; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354 [2000]; William, 191 Misc 2d 293 [2002]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, EJ., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[35]*35OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01) in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging him with said offense as well as unlawful possession of marihuana (Penal Law § 221.05). On appeal, he challenges for the first time the jurisdictional sufficiency of the accusatory instrument as it relates to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, alleging, inter alia, that the “conclusory” reference in the factual part to the weapon in question as a gravity knife was insufficient (cf. Matter of Rodney J., 83 NY2d 503, 507 [1994]).

In our opinion, the accusatory instrument did not have to contain the detailed definition set forth in Penal Law § 265.00 (5), nor did it have to state that the knife was operational, as the term “gravity knife” is self defining (see People v William, 191 Misc 2d 293 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 682 [2002]). While proof that the object was a gravity knife, as that term is defined in Penal Law § 265.00 (5), and that it was operational is required for conviction (see People v Zuniga, 303 AD2d 773, 774 [2003]), such detailed allegations are unnecessary to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of an accusatory instrument (see CPL 100.15, 100.40; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354 [2000]; William, 191 Misc 2d 293 [2002]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, EJ., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Misc. 3d 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dreyden-nyappterm-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack