Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Dreyden, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2009-03-09
Citations: 23 Misc. 3d 34
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Dreyden, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
[879 NYS2d 283]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Dreyden, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
March 9, 2009
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Legal Aid Society, New York City (Steven Banks and John Schoeffel of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION 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.