Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Gene R. Lopez, J.), rendered February 18, 2011, as amended June 22, 2011. The amended judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct.

ORDERED that the amended judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, specifically, a gravity knife (see Penal Law §§ 265.00 [5] 265.01 [1]). In the pertinent portion of the factual part of the information, a police officer alleged that he had "recovered a black-handled gravity knife in the front right pocket of the defendant's jacket," and that his "conclusion that said knife is a gravity knife is based upon his training and the fact that said knife was activated by the deponent to an open and locked position through the force of gravity." Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20). Defendant, in effect, contends that the information was facially defective because it failed to track the language of Penal Law § 265.00 (5), which defines a "gravity knife" 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."

To be sufficient on its face, an information must contain factual allegations of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge, demonstrate reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged, and contain nonhearsay factual allegations "that establish, if true, every element of the offense charged" (People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 137 [1987] see CPL 100.15 [3] 100.40 [1] [b, c] People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2009] People v Jones, 9 NY3d 259, 262 [2007] People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). When reviewing an accusatory instrument for facial sufficiency, the factual allegations must be given "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]).

To satisfy these requirements, the factual allegations of an information charging a defendant with possession of a gravity knife must, "at the very least, explain briefly, with reference to [the officer's] training and experience, how he or she formed the belief that the object recovered in defendant's possession was a gravity knife" (People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 104 [2010]). In other words, the allegations must contain "some explanation concerning the basis" for the officer's conclusion that the object was a gravity knife (People v Jackson, 18 NY3d [*2]738, 746 [2012]). In addition, the allegations must describe the observable, identifiable characteristics of the gravity knife, and its operation, based on the officer's personal observations, handling, and testing of the knife (see People v Brannon, 16 NY3d 596, 599 [2011] Matter of Michael Grudge M., 80 AD3d 614, 615 [2011] People v Martinez, 41 Misc 3d 143[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52055[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013] People v Sans, 40 Misc 3d 141[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51464[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]). The information need not "contain factual allegations that track every detail of the definition of a gravity knife" (People v Martinez, 41 Misc 3d 143[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52055[U], *2).

Considering all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from its allegations (see People v Jackson, 18 NY3d at 747), the information is facially sufficient. It alleged that "said knife was activated by the deponent," and that the officer allegedly activated the knife "to an open and locked position through the force of gravity." Thus, the information satisfied the "reasonable cause" and "prima facie case requirements" (People v Kalin, 12 NY3d at 228-229; People v Jones, 9 NY3d at 262). Moreover, the officer alleged that, by activating and opening the knife, he "released" the blade "by the force of gravity," and "locked" it in place (Penal Law § 265.00 [5]). Finally, the officer indicated that his "conclusion that said knife is a gravity knife is based upon his training," which satisfies the requirement established by the Court of Appeals in Dreyden.

Accordingly, the amended judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 28, 2014