PEOPLE v. DREYDEN (2009)

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered June 3, 2007.   The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

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 N.Y.2d 503, 507, 611 N.Y.S.2d 485, 633 N.E.2d 1089 [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, 742 N.Y.S.2d 772 [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2002], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 682, 746 N.Y.S.2d 472, 774 N.E.2d 237 [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 A.D.2d 773, 774, 759 N.Y.S.2d 86 [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 N.Y.2d 354, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233 [2000];  William, 191 Misc.2d 293, 742 N.Y.S.2d 772).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.