You are here: / / THE INDICTMENT DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC SUBDIVISION OF THE STATUTE...

THE INDICTMENT DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC SUBDIVISION OF THE STATUTE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING, A JURISIDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH WAS NOT CURED BY AN AMENDMENT; CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the indictment was defective because it did not indicate the specific statutory subdivision defendant was accused of violating:

… [W]e agree with defendant that the count of the indictment under which he was convicted was jurisdictionally defective and that the court should not have amended the indictment at the People’s request. While the jurisdictional requirements of an indictment count are ordinarily met by an allegation that the defendant “violated the terms of a specific statute designated by name and section” … , that rule does not apply where, as here, the statute at issue allows for commission under discrete subdivisions and there is no specific allegations regarding the subsection that the defendant allegedly violated … . The second count of the indictment charging defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Penal Law § 265.02(1), could be satisfied by proof that defendant committed the “bump-up” crime of fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law 265.01) in one of four ways, without specifically alleging the provision that defendant violated. Further, the amendment had the effect of “curing . . . a failure . . . to charge or state an offense” or the “legal insufficiency of the factual allegations,” both of which are prohibited by CPL 200.70(2).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is vacated and the indictment dismissed. People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 02214, First Dept 4-14-26

Practice Point: If the statute allows for commission of the offense under discrete subdivisions, the specific subdivision under which defendant is charged must be indicated in the indictment. Failure to indicate the subdivision is a jurisdictional defect which apparently cannot be cured by amendment.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN AN OPEN, UNGUARDED MANHOLE AS HE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OVER IT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROTECTIVE RAILING AROUND THE MANHOLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR STATEMENTS MADE WHILE A CANDIDATE (FIRST DEPT).
WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ARGUMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
​ THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE AGENT SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF COULD RELY ON THE AGENT TO CORRECT ANY MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE INSURANCE APPLICATION (FIRST DEPT).
THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF THE CHILD DIED BEFORE SHE AND PETITIONER WERE TO BE MARRIED; THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER ARGUED PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY AND FAMILY COURT AGREED; HOWEVER STANDING CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY EXTRAORDINAY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY BE PRESENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AN EDITORIAL DIRECTOR AT GAWKER, DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE DAILY BEAST REPORTERS WHO WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT GAWKER VIOLATED THE “GROSS IRRESPONSIBILITY STANDARD” IN MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF; THE DEFAMATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
No Element of Intent in Constructive Possession of Contraband
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, DEFENDANT EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-ORAL-CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF PARTIAL PERFORMANCE BY DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE ON THE ORAL MODIFICATION (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

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT... PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT DIRECTED...