Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. Ensley

Criminal Court of the City of New York

Decided December 8, 1999PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Paul G. Feinman, J.

*142Defendant is charged with a single count of trademark counterfeiting in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.71). He moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that it is facially insufficient. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is granted.

A misdemeanor information is sufficient on its face when it has both an accusatory part designating each and every offense charged and a factual part containing a statement of the complainant that alleges facts of an evidentiary nature that tend to support the charges (CPL 100.15 [2], [3]). The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. AlejandroNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. People v. CisseCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1996
  3. People v. NiangCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1994

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. Frank S.Criminal Court of the City of New York · 2000
  2. People v. ThiamCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2001
  3. People v. Wu ChengCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API