You are here: / / POSSESSION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE CHARGE DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE...

POSSESSION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE CHARGE DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE DECRIMINALIZING SUCH POSSESSION IS NOT TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the indictment charging possession of a gravity knife based upon the statute decriminalizing such possession, even though the statute is not to be applied retroactively:

With respect to the weapon conviction, involving a gravity knife, the People, in the exercise of their broad prosecutorial discretion, have agreed that the indictment should be dismissed under the particular circumstances of the case and in light of recent legislation amending Penal Law § 265.01 to effectively decriminalize the simple possession of gravity knives, notwithstanding that this law does not apply retroactively. We agree … . People v Caviness, 2019 NY Slip Op 07494, First Dept 10-17-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO HOLD BACK A HAND TRUCK WITH A 500 POUND LOAD AS HE WAS DESCENDING STAIRS; IT WAS POSSIBLE TO LOWER THE LOAD USING RIGGING IN AN ELEVATOR SHAFTWAY BUT PLAINTIFF WAS DIRECTED TO USE THE STAIRS; PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT STOPPED SHORT DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
Property Owner Responsible for Defect in Sidewalk that Did Not Directly “Abut” Owner’s Property (Liability Based On New York City Ordinance)
HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) LIABILITY APPLIED, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM FAULT UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION POSTED ON FACEBOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF PUDDLE CREATED A CREDIBILITY ISSUE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHICH COULD NOT BE RESOLVED WITHOUT TRIAL.
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY IN THE GRAND JURY IDENTIFYING THE PERSON DEPICTED IN VIDEOTAPES AS THE DEFENDANT WAS ADMISSIBLE, COURT OFFERED NO OPINION WHETHER THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, WHO SUED UNDER THE NAME MARGARET DOE, TO AMEND THE CAPTION TO INCLUDE HER LEGAL NAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF PRESENTED EVIDENCE SUING UNDER HER OWN NAME WOULD HAVE SEVERE MENTAL-HEALTH CONSEQUENCES (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MEDICAL PROVIDER’S REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ALLOWING PAYMENT FOR CLAIMANT’S... DEFENDANT’S CONNECTICUT CONVICTION WAS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK REGISTRABLE...