People v Kramtsov (Sergei)
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 30, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., 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"; 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.
Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this court entered on June 21, 2010, recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor. [*2]
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE COURT.
I concur
DECEMBER 30, 2010
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
June 2010 Term
McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
The People of the State of New York
Respondent,NY County Clerk's No.
570537/08
-
against-
Sergei Kramtsov,
Defendant-Appellant.Calendar No. 08/464-468
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"; 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.
Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this court entered on
June 21, 2010, recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor.
[*3]
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 30, 2010
Decision Date: December 30, 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.