The defendant herein moves to dismiss the charges against him on the grounds of facial insufficiency.

The defendant is presently charged with PL 265.01, Criminal Possession of a Weapon

in the Fourth Degree.

At issue is whether the factual allegations that the defendant possessed a gravity knife are facially insufficient under statute and case law.

The instrument states that the arresting officer recovered a gravity knife from the defendant, which he tested, and that said knife blade, "released from the handle by the force of gravity or centrifugal force and locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device."

The defense argues that these words mirror the statute and are conclusory within the meaning of People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 731. It is further argued that the instrument lacks any reference to the officer's training and experience as discussed in People v Dreyden,

15 NY3d 100.

In this case, the accusatory instrument indicates that the officer tested the knife and that it operated according to the definition of a gravity knife in PL 265.00(5).

While the instrument does not refer to the officer's prior experience or training, the

conclusion that the knife in question was a gravity knife was based on personally testing to

determine that the knife operated according to the statutory definition, rather than relying on prior [*2]training or experience in recognizing it as such. See, In re Michael Grudge M, 80 AD3d 614.

This Court is not convinced that Dreyden, supra, establishes an additional requirement that every accusatory instrument alleging possession of contraband must contain a recitation of the arresting officers prior training and experience in identifying it, where there are also accompanying allegations of a nonconclusory nature.

In recent times, the Court of Appeals has clarified the pleading requirements of accusatory instruments. "So long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading." See, People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354.

In any event, the People would still have within the speedy trial limits to provide a further supporting deposition or new instrument to supplement any alleged deficiency in these pleadings.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss must at this time be denied and the case is

continued for further proceedings.

This Opinion constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: June 24, 2011

____________________________

Hon. Alan J. Meyer