People v Aragon (Antonio)

[*1] People v Aragon (Antonio) 2014 NY Slip Op 51281(U) Decided on July 29, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Hunter, Jr., J.
12-322

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Antonio Aragon, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant 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.

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 NY 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 AD2d 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 NY 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.

I concurI concur
Decision Date: July 29, 2014