Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (William Miller, J.), rendered December 13, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in an information with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03). In a supporting deposition, Police Officer Patrick Etienne stated that he had observed defendant in possession of a "metal crack pipe" containing cocaine residue, which pipe was recovered from the ground where the officer had observed a co-defendant throw it. A police laboratory controlled substance analysis report was filed, confirming the presence of cocaine residue in the pipe. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. The sole issue raised on appeal is the sufficiency of the information.

An information, together with any supporting deposition accompanying or filed in connection therewith (CPL 100.20), must allege, among other things, facts of an evidentiary nature establishing, if true, every element of the offense charged and defendant's commission thereof (CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [1]; see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2009]; People v Jones, 9 NY3d 259, 261 [2007]). Upon a court's review of the sufficiency of an information, the factual allegations must be given "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]). It is only necessary, "as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), that the instrument adequately apprise the accused of the nature of the offense charged to afford the accused a fair opportunity to prepare a defense and to avoid being prosecuted twice for the same offense (People v Casey, 95 NY2d at 360).

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree when, among other things, he "knowingly and unlawfully possesses a controlled" substance (Penal Law § 220.03). As this court has previously held, an information charging a defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree based on an allegation that the defendant was "in possession" of such substance is not jurisdictionally defective for failing to contain evidentiary allegations detailing the manner in which the defendant possessed [*2]the controlled substance (People v Ortiz, 146 Misc 2d 594 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 1990]). " Possess' means to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over tangible property" (Penal Law § 10.00 [8]). In the case at bar, the accusatory instrument sufficiently set forth the element of possession by virtue of the allegation that the arresting officer "observed the defendant in possession" of a quantity of cocaine residue.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the information sufficiently states facts showing that his possession of a controlled substance was knowing. It is well settled that knowledge may be established circumstantially by a defendant's conduct, and the allegation in the information of possession alone permits the inference, for pleading purposes, that the defendant knew what he possessed (People v Mizell, 72 NY2d 651, 656 [1988]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 07, 2013