Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Gene R. Lopez, J.), rendered November 10, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20) in satisfaction of an information that charged him with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal § 265.01 [1]), a gravity knife. A gravity knife is defined as "any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device" (Penal Law * 265.00 [5]). In the information, the arresting officer stated that he had determined that the knife recovered from defendant was a gravity knife based on his training and on his handling of the knife, namely his experiment, which revealed that the blade "swung open at the hinges" and moved into a "locked position" solely "through the force of gravity." On appeal, defendant argues that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally insufficient on its face as it lacked nonhearsay factual allegations of an evidentiary nature sufficient to establish [*2]how the officer's training qualified him to identify gravity knives and to allege the particular device by which the blade locked into place. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

An information is sufficient on its face when it alleges nonhearsay facts of an evidentiary nature which establish, if true, every element of the crime charged and the defendant's commission thereof (CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [1] [c]; People v Jones, 9 NY3d 259, 262 [2007]). "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" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]; see also People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 230 [2009]; People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 575 [2004]; People v Coleman, 28 Misc 3d 24, 26 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

The definition of a gravity knife set forth in Penal Law § 265.00 (5) "distinguishes gravity knives from certain folding knives that cannot readily be opened by gravity or centrifugal force" (People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 104 [2010]). "Typically, one cannot tell if a knife is a gravity knife until the knife is opened" (People v Brannon, 16 NY3d 596, 602 [2011]). Thus, a gravity knife may be identified when, by experiment, the blade can be released from its handle and, upon being released, locks into place by gravity or centrifugal force. It follows that an information sufficiently identifies a knife as a gravity knife when the complainant states that he or she opened the knife by force of gravity or centrifugal force and that, upon being so opened, the blade locked into place (e.g. People v Zuniga, 303 AD2d 773, 774 [2003] ["(A) gravity knife, as so defined, requires that the blade lock in place automatically upon its release and without further action by the user"]). In People v Sans (40 Misc 3d 141[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51464[U], *1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]), this court affirmed a conviction of unlawful possession of a gravity knife based on a misdemeanor complaint which alleged that the arresting officer had "tested [the knife] and determined that it was a gravity knife because it opened with centrifugal force and locked automatically in place." It was not necessary that the information contain factual allegations that track every detail of the definition of a gravity knife, for example, the particular mechanism by which the blade, once freed from its sheath, locks into place. While the complainant herein referred only in general terms to his "training" with gravity knives, it is enough that he set forth the " observable, identifiable characteristics of the knife' " (People v Cruz, 39 Misc 3d 52, 56 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013], quoting People v Brannon, 16 NY3d at 599; see e.g. Matter of Michael Grudge, 80 AD3d 614, 615 [2011]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 09, 2013