People v Kramtsov (Sergei)
Annotate this CaseDecided on June 21, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570537/08.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
against
Sergei Kramtsov, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court
of the City of New York, New York County (Rita Mella, J.), rendered August 5, 2008,
convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of menacing in the third degree, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Rita Mella, J.), rendered
August 5, 2008, affirmed.
The misdemeanor information sufficiently set forth the factual basis of the underlying
menacing charge by alleging, inter alia, that, shortly after midnight on a specified date, defendant
"approached" a Manhattan restaurant while the complainant was standing directly behind the
restaurant's front window; that defendant "took out a knife from [his] pocket, looked at [the
complainant], and ...
tap[ped] said knife on the window"; that defendant then kicked and "shatter[ed]" a stone
pot that was outside the restaurant; and that police eventually recovered a gravity knife from
defendant's right front pants pocket. These allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or
technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), were sufficient for
pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause and a prima facie case that defendant committed
menacing in the third degree by displaying the knife so as to "intentionally place[ ] or attempt[ ]
to place" the complainant in fear of imminent physical injury (see Penal Law §120.15;
People v Brown, 307 AD2d 973 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 641 [2003];
People v Roberts, 19 Misc 3d
140[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50348[U] [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 990 [2007]; cf. People v Nwogu, 22 Misc 3d
201 [2008]. That defendant and the complainant are alleged to have stood on opposite sides
of a glass window during the incident is not fatal to the prosecution's case, at least upon a
threshold, pleading-stage inquiry, where the sworn allegations of the information were otherwise
sufficient to support a finding that defendant acted with the requisite intent and that the
complainant had a well-founded fear of physical injury.
[*2]
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: June 21, 2010
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.