You are here: / / PENAL LAW 220.39(1) AND 220.16(1) DO NOT REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFIC...

PENAL LAW 220.39(1) AND 220.16(1) DO NOT REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFIC DRUG INVOLVED; ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SUBSTANCE IS A “NARCOTIC DRUG” IS REQUIRED; THEREFORE PENAL LAW 220.16(1) AND 21 USC 841(1)(A) ARE “STRICTLY EQUIVALENT” OFFENSES FOR PURPOSES OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, overruling precedent, determined that the knowledge element of Penal Law 220.16(1) (criminal possession of a controlled substance) requires only that a defendant know that the substance is a “narcotic drug” and does not require knowledge that the substance is a specific drug. Therefore Penal Law 220.16(1) is equivalent to 21 USC 841(1)(a) and defendant can be sentenced as a second felony offender based on the prior federal conviction:

… Penal Law § 220.39(1) … [states that] a person is guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree “when he knowingly and unlawfully sells . . . a narcotic drug.” We now hold that the “nature” of the substance possessed under Penal Law § 220.39(1), and under Penal Law § 220.16(1), the statute at issue in the instance case, is, in accordance with the statutory language, “a narcotic drug.” Knowledge of the particular drug possessed is not required. This definition also aligns the knowledge requirement with other decisions of this Court. For example, in People v Martin (153 AD2d 807, 808 [1st Dept 1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 950 [1989]), we held, in a different context, that “Penal Law § 220.16(1) does not distinguish between the types of narcotics possessed, but treats all drugs classified as narcotics interchangeably.”

Under the correct definition of the nature of the substance possessed, defendant’s federal conviction and Penal Law § 220.16(1) are strictly equivalent. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01857, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Here the First Department overruled precedent which held that the knowledge element of drug-possession charges required knowledge of the specific drug involved. Because the knowledge element requires only that a defendant know the possessed substance is a “narcotic drug,” Penal Law 220.16(1) is strictly equivalent to the federal statute 21 USC 841(1)(a) for purposes of a second felony offender adjudication.

 

You might also like
POLICIES DID NOT REQUIRE THE INSURER TO DEFEND THE INSURED, BUT DID REQUIRE THE INSURER TO PAY THE INSURED’S DEFENSE COSTS (FIRST DEPT).
CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE, EXACERBATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THE CROSSWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED OF A SLIP AND FALL DEFENDANT TO WIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD FOR TAKING A JUDGMENT RUNS FROM THE DEFAULT AFTER THE FILING AND SERVING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, NOT A SUBSEQUENT AMENDED COMPLAINT (FIRST DEPT).
Doctor Did Not Have a Duty to Disclose an Email from a Non-Physician Representative of the Implant Manufacturer Which Indicated Plaintiff Might Not Be a Good Candidate for the Implants
IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT).
Broker’s Complaint Stated Causes of Action for Breach of Implied Contract and Unjust Enrichment—Complaint Alleged Broker Was Entitled to a Commission Where Defendant Buyers Abandoned the Potential Purchase in which Broker Was Involved and 18 Months Later Purchased Nearly Identical Property from the Same Seller
ALTHOUGH SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE DISFAVORED; HERE THE ISSUES IN EACH MOTION DID NOT OVERLAP AND APPELLANTS OFFERED A SUFFICIENT REASON. I.E. THE FIRST MOTION PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION IN WHICH HE ADMITTED SWERVING INTO APPELLANTS’ VEHICLE (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

ABSENT A MOTION BY A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION... ALLOWING DEFENDANT AND CODEFENDANT TO EXERCISE THEIR SHARED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES...