People v. Aragon

• Decision Date: 29 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12–322.,12–322.
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 51281,999 N.Y.S.2d 797,44 Misc.3d 140
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antonio ARAGON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

? 44 Misc.3d 140

999 N.Y.S.2d 797

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 51281

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Antonio ARAGON, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–322.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.

July 29, 2014

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREDefendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Joanne D. Quinones, J.), rendered March 14, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Present: LOWE, III, P.J., HUNTER, JR., J.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction (Joanne Quinones, J. at plea and sentence), rendered March 14, 2012, affirmed.

In view of the defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint ( see People v. Dumay, ––– NY3d ––––, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op 04038 [2014] ). So viewed, the accusatory instrument-alleging that police recovered from defendant “one set of brass metal knuckles”—was sufficiently evidentiary in character to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of the charged offense of fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon (see Penal Law § 265.01[1]; Matter of Jeremy B., 151 A.D.2d 314, 315–316 [1989]; see also People v. Roberts, 63 AD3d 1294, 1296 [2009] ). Considering “the well-understood character” of brass or metal knuckles ( People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 402 [1912] ), no additional descriptive detail of the object recovered from defendant was required for the People's pleading to provide “adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy” ( People v. Kasse, 22 NY3d 1142, 1143 [2014] ). To be distinguished is People v. Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103–104 (2010), in which a majority of the Court of Appeals held insufficient a misdemeanor complaint which set forth no more than “[a] conclusory statement that an object recovered from a defendant is a gravity knife,” an “escoteric” weapon which, unlike metal knuckles, “the Penal Law explicitly defines in complicated detail” (New York Practice Series–New York Criminal Law § 33.4 [3d ed] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.