People v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Singh

116 A.D.3d 625, 983 N.Y.S.2d 801

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 24, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 625 (People v. Singh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State 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. Singh, 116 A.D.3d 625, 983 N.Y.S.2d 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert A. Sackett, J.), rendered February 15, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge with five days’ of community service unanimously affirmed.

The information was not jurisdictionally defective. “[A]s a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading” (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), the allegation that an imitation pistol “resembled a real .9 [sic] mm semi-automatic pistol, in that it was black and silver in color,” sufficiently negated both the permissible-colors exception set forth in Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-131 (g) (1) (a) and the transparent/ translucent materials exception set forth in section 10-131 (g) (1) (b) (see People v Dent, 112 AD3d 529 [1st Dept 2013]; People v Delarosa, 27 Misc 3d 1209[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50636[U], *4-5 [Grim Ct, NY County 2010]). Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert A. Sackett, J.), rendered February 15, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge with five days’ of community service unanimously affirmed.

The information was not jurisdictionally defective. “[A]s a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading” (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), the allegation that an imitation pistol “resembled a real .9 [sic] mm semi-automatic pistol, in that it was black and silver in color,” sufficiently negated both the permissible-colors exception set forth in Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-131 (g) (1) (a) and the transparent/ translucent materials exception set forth in section 10-131 (g) (1) (b) (see People v Dent, 112 AD3d 529 [1st Dept 2013]; People v Delarosa, 27 Misc 3d 1209[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50636[U], *4-5 [Grim Ct, NY County 2010]). Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 625, 983 N.Y.S.2d 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-singh-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack