Case ID: ny-2d_90/html/0963-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[688 NE2d 486, 665 NYS2d 612]
    In the Matter of Lavar D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
    Argued September 10, 1997;
    decided October 21, 1997
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Valerie Pels, New York City, Carol Goldstein and Jane M. Spinak for appellant.
    
      Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Elizabeth I. Freedman and Francis F. Caputo of counsel), for respondent presentment agency.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Respondent was charged with and found to have committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted second degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law § 265.03), attempted third degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law § 265.02 [3]) (two counts), attempted fourth degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law § 265.01 [1]) (two counts) and unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16 (Penal Law § 265.05). The charges arise out of an incident in which respondent was seen on a public street holding a firearm that later proved to be loaded but inoperable.

Both respondent and the presentment agency have proceeded from the outset on the assumption that the counts charging respondent with acts constituting attempt crimes required proof that he specifically intended to possess a firearm that was operable. The allegations that respondent carried a weapon on a public street and that that weapon was loaded are sufficient to support the inference that respondent believed and intended the firearm to be operable.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.