People v Ferrer (Misael)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Ferrer (Misael) 2019 NY Slip Op 50337(U) Decided on March 20, 2019 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 20, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Ling-Cohan, Edmead, JJ.
570779/14

The People of the State of New York,

against

Misael Ferrer, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Harold Adler, J.), rendered August 20, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Harold Adler, J.), rendered August 20, 2014, affirmed.

The misdemeanor complaint, which in this case was required to meet the standards that apply to an information, was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the complaint "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]) that it sufficiently alleged that defendant constructively possessed a weapon. The arresting officer alleged that defendant had "on top of a pile of shoe boxes inside his apartment, One Bryco Arms 9 mm semi-automatic handgun," and that defendant stated "I found the gun in the garbage 2 winters ago when I walked past Ryer and Burnside Avenue I picked up and took it home" (see People v Diaz, 24 NY3d 1187 [2015]; People v Manini, 79 NY2d 561 [1992]; People v Kinsler, 142 AD3d 926, 927 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1125 [2016]; see also People v Dinardo, 94 AD3d 626 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 972 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 20, 2019

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.