Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Linda Lopez, J.), rendered May 17, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01). The factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged that the complainant, the arresting officer, had seen defendant in possession of a gravity knife and that, after the officer had recovered the knife, he had tested it and determined that it was a gravity knife because it opened with centrifugal force and locked automatically in place.

On appeal, defendant asserts that the Penal Law 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" (Penal Law § 265.00 [5]) and, thus, that the accusatory instrument in the case at bar is facially insufficient since it contained no allegation establishing that the knife was "released from the handle or sheath" or locked into place "by means of a button, spring, lever or other device." Defendant further asserts that the accusatory instrument is facially insufficient since it makes no reference to the arresting officer's training or experience regarding gravity knives.

At the outset, we note that an argument concerning an accusatory instrument's facial sufficiency is jurisdictional (see People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]). Thus, defendant's claim was not forfeited upon his plea of guilty (see People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]; People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 573 [2004]) and must be reviewed in spite of his failure to raise it in the Criminal Court (see Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133).

While the accusatory instrument was denominated an information, defendant, contrary to his contention, expressly waived his right to be prosecuted by information (cf. People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 [2009]; People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429 [1974]). Under the circumstances, the accusatory instrument's legal sufficiency must be evaluated under the standards which govern the legal sufficiency of a misdemeanor complaint (cf. People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 228 [2009]; People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 359 [2000]). A misdemeanor complaint is sufficient on its face [*2]when it alleges facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge (CPL 100.15 [3]) and provides reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged (CPL 100.40 [4] [b]; see People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). "[A]n accusatory instrument must be given a reasonable, not overly technical reading" (Konieczny, 2 NY3d at 576; see also Casey, 95 NY2d at 360). When the accusatory instrument herein is given such a reading, the "fair implication" (Casey, 95 NY2d at 360) of its averments supports, or tends to support, the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. The arresting officer's conclusion that the object he observed in defendant's possession was, in fact, a gravity knife, was based on his personal handling and testing of the knife (cf. Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 30, 2013