Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Malachi WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (April A. Newbauer, J.), rendered April 18, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the third degree and attempted identity theft in the first degree under indictment No. 76084/23, and sentencing him to concurrent jail terms of 364 days, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, and otherwise affirmed. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J.), rendered March 28, 2024, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under indictment No. 71530/23, and sentencing him to a jail term of one year, to run concurrently with the above judgment, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant has standing to raise his challenge to the constitutionality of New York's prohibition on those under 21 years old from obtaining a firearm license, notwithstanding that he never applied to obtain a firearm license (see People v. Johnson, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06528, *3 [2025]). On the merits, defendant has failed to establish that the instant indictment is unconstitutional under (New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 [2022]).
Defendant's challenges to the “good moral character” provision in Penal Law § 400.00(1)(b) and New York's ban on large-capacity magazines (Penal Law § 265.02[8]) are unpreserved because he failed to raise them in his motion to dismiss the indictment (see People v. Cabrera, 41 N.Y.3d 35, 42–51, 207 N.Y.S.3d 18, 230 N.E.3d 1082 [2023]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, the latter challenge is moot because defendant was not convicted of that count (see People v. Watts, 234 A.D.3d 620, 621, 226 N.Y.S.3d 65 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 1059, 239 N.Y.S.3d 101, 265 N.E.3d 1118 [2025]; People v. Ruiz, 146 A.D.3d 417, 417, 43 N.Y.S.3d 743 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1188, 52 N.Y.S.3d 714, 75 N.E.3d 106 [2017]).
Based on our own interest of justice powers, we vacate the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing under indictment No. 76084/23 (see People v. Chirinos, 190 A.D.3d 434, 435, 135 N.Y.S.3d 641 [1st Dept. 2021]). We note that the People do not oppose this relief.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 5958-, 5959
Decided: February 26, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)