Summary
In People v Ocasio (108 Misc.2d 211), the Appellate Term, Second Department, held that a charge of Penal Law § 265.01 did not apply to a target pistol licensee who was found to possess his gun other than in transit to or from a pistol range, essentially a similar fact pattern to that presented in this case.
Summary of this case from People v. SchumannOpinion
February 11, 1981
Appeal from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, PATRICK W. McGINLEY, J.
Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Debra W. Petrover of counsel), for appellant.
Eagan Rudnick (James E. Eagan of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
Order dismissing information affirmed.
Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law, § 265.01). Concededly, although defendant possessed only a "target permit", he was found in possession of the pistol when he was neither at nor in transit to or from a range. Defendant argues, however, that since he possessed a license, albeit limited in scope, he is immune from prosecution by virtue of subdivision 3 of section 265.20 Penal of the Penal Law. The People, on the other hand, maintain that possession of a weapon in violation of the terms and conditions of the license is tantamount to possession without a license.
Where, as here, the gravamen of the charge is "naked possession" as opposed to possession coupled with an intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another, the offense is not cognizable under section 265.01 Penal of the Penal Law, if the person had a license to possess the weapon. Rather, if the weapon was possessed in violation of the terms and conditions of the license the proper vehicle for prosecution is subdivision 15 of section 400.00 Penal of the Penal Law (see People v. Serrano, 71 A.D.2d 258, lv. to app granted 48 N.Y.2d 987).
Concur: PINO, P.J., JONES and KUNZEMAN, JJ.