People v. Weinberg, 315 N.E.2d 434 (NY 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Weinberg, 315 N.E.2d 434 (NY 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 2 distinct cases · …serves merely as the basis for commencement of a criminal action, permitting court arraignment and temporary control over the defendant's person where there is as yet no prima facie case. at p. 431 ✓
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, 2021–2025 · …serves merely as the basis for commencement of a criminal action, permitting court arraignment and temporary control over the defendant's person where there is as yet no prima facie case at p. 431 ✓
107 citation events (48 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Shealy
N.Y. App. Term. · 2026 · confidence medium
Since defendant did not waive prosecution by information, the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be evaluated under the standards that apply to an information ( see CPL 100.15, 100.40 [1] [a]; People v Kalin , 12 NY3d 225, 228 [2009]; People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Klein (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2026 · confidence medium
Here, since defendant did not waive prosecution by information, the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be evaluated under the standards that apply to an information ( see CPL 100.15, 100.40 [1] [a]; People v Kalin , 12 NY3d 225, 228 [2009]; People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thomside
Kings Criminal Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
A misdemeanor complaint "serves merely as the basis for commencement of a criminal action, permitting court arraignment and temporary control over the defendant's person where there is as yet no prima facie case." People v. Slade , 37 NY3d 127, 136, 148 N.Y.S.3d 413, 170 N.E.3d 1189 (2021), citing People v. Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431, 315 N.E.2d 434, 358 N.Y.S.2d 357 (1974).
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nowicki (3×)
Kings Criminal Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
A misdemeanor complaint "serves merely as the basis for commencement of a criminal action, permitting court arraignment and temporary control over the defendant's person where there is as yet no prima facie case." People v. Slade , 37 NY3d 127 , 136 (2021), citing People v. Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 (1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Willis (2×)
NY · 2025 · confidence medium
Crucially, a misdemeanor complaint "serves merely as the basis for commencement of a criminal action, permitting court arraignment and temporary control over the defendant's person where there is as yet no prima facie case" ( People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Willis
NY · 2025 · confidence medium
Crucially, a misdemeanor complaint "serves merely as the basis for commencement of a criminal action, permitting court arraignment and temporary control over the defendant's person where there is as yet no prima facie case" ( People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. The City of Rochester
W.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
The “fundamental difference” between them is that “a misdemeanor complaint may rest on hearsay allegations while an information may not.” People v. Weinberg, 34 N.Y.2d 429, 431 (1974) (citing C.P.L. § 100.40).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Luna-Velasquez (Samuel)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2022 · confidence medium
In the instant case, since defendant did not waive prosecution by information, the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be evaluated{**75 Misc 3d at 18} under the standards that apply to an information ( see CPL 100.15, 100.40 [1] [a]; People v Barnes , 26 NY3d 986 [2015]; People v Kalin , 12 NY3d 225, 228 [2009]; People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Marchese (Francesco)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2021 · confidence medium
As defendant did not waive prosecution by information, the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be evaluated under standards that apply to an information ( see CPL 100.15, 100.40 [1]; People v Barnes , 26 NY3d 986 [2015]; People v Kalin , 12 NY3d 225, 228 [2009]; People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alma (Nicholas)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2021 · confidence medium
In the instant case, since defendant did not waive prosecution by information, the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be evaluated under standards that apply to an information ( see CPL 100.15, 100.40 [1] [a]; People v Barnes , 26 NY3d 986 [2015]; People v Kalin , 12 NY3d 225, 228 [2009]; People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Kenneth Slade , The People v. Kieth Brooks, The People v. Charo N. Allen
NY · 2021 · confidence medium
A misdemeanor complaint “serves merely as the basis for commencement of a criminal action, permitting court arraignment and temporary control over the defendant’s person where there is as yet no prima facie case” (People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ciccone (Nicholas)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2020 · confidence medium
On appeal, defendant contends that the accusatory instrument is jurisdictionally defective because it failed to allege that the rules and regulations were "conspicuously" posted. {**71 Misc 3d at 8}As a threshold matter, since defendant did not waive prosecution by information, the instrument's facial sufficiency is reviewed by the standards applicable to an information ( see CPL 100.40 [1]; People v Kalin , 12 NY3d 225, 228 [2009]; People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Myers (3×)
NY · 2018 · confidence medium
Mr. Myers' second argument rests, albeit mistakenly, on a vital and settled proposition: "It is axiomatic in our jurisprudence that a waiver of a substantial right must be made knowingly and intelligently" ( People v Weinberg , 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Frankie Hatton (2×)
NY · 2015 · confidence medium
In People v Weinberg ( 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]), the Court made clear that waiver of this right must be knowing and intelligent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dumay
NY · 2014 · confidence medium
A defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive prosecution by misdemeanor information, as demonstrated by an affirmative act (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 359 [2000]; People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Chan
N.Y. App. Term. · 2012 · confidence medium
“By statute, a defendant has the right to be prosecuted by information” (People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]; see CPL 100.10 [1]; 170.65 [1], [3]), and the record does not reveal that the accusatory instrument was ever formally converted to an information or that defendant waived his right to be prosecuted by information (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 359 [2000]; People v Connor, 63 NY2d 11, 14 [1984]; People v Riser, 22 Misc 3d 88, 90 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Picado
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 2011 · confidence medium
The defendant must be prosecuted by a valid information unless he waives such prosecution and consents to be prosecuted by a misdemeanor complaint (see CPL 170.65 [1]; People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nunn
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 2009 · confidence medium
After discussing the defendant’s right to waive prosecution by information, the Court noted that “in the absence of [an express waiver], the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument . . . must be evaluated under the standards that apply to an information.” (I d., citing People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974].) Reiterating the ruling of Dumas , the Court of Appeals stated that “[standing alone, a conclusory statement that a substance seized from a defendant was a particular type of controlled substance does not meet the reasonable cause requirement.” (Id. at 229, citing Dumas at 7…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kalin (2×)
NY · 2009 · confidence medium
Thus, in the absence of such consent, the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument—even if it was intended to be a complaint—must be evaluated under the standards that apply to an information (see People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sherman
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 2009 · confidence medium
By statute, a defendant has the right to be prosecuted by information (People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Roslyn Sephardic Center
N.Y. App. Term. · 2007 · confidence medium
By statute, a defendant has the right to be prosecuted by an information (see CPL 100.10, 170.65 [1], [3]; People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]), and a waiver of this right cannot be “implied from defendant’s silence and proceeding to trial” (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 359 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Silverberg
N.Y. App. Term. · 2003 · confidence medium
So far as is shown in the record now before us, the defendant’s February 16, 1998 telephone call to the complainant was made prior to the commencement of the underlying criminal proceeding initiated against Polansky at the behest of the complainant, viz., on the same day that Polansky was served with an appearance ticket and before the filing of a formal accusatory instrument or Polansky’s arraignment thereon (see, CPL 100.10; People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]; see also, People v Parris, 79 NY2d 69 [1992]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Quiles
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 1998 · confidence medium
(CPL 170.65 [1], [3]; People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974].) An information commences a criminal action only when filed with a local criminal court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hernandez
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 1989 · confidence medium
In People v Weinberg ( 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]) the Court of Appeals addressed the waiver of the right to prosecution by information and the misdemeanor complaint’s function: "The misdeameanor complaint is an accusatory instrument filed with a local criminal court charging a person with a crime.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Paul
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 1986 · confidence medium
(People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974].) The complaint must contain two parts, an accusatory part, designating the offense(s) alleged, and a factual part, setting forth "facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charges” (CPL 100.15 [1], [2], [3]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." People v. Friedman
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Moreover, in a misdemeanor prosecution, a defendant must be tried upon a facially sufficient information (see CPL 170.65 [1]; 100.40 [1]; see also People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. DeLeon
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
(CPL 170.65 [1], [3]; see also, People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429 [1974].) In People v Whetson ( 135 Misc 2d 1 [Crim Ct, NY County 1987]), the complainant testified at trial that he had never read the complaint before signing the corroborating affidavit.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Campbell
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
(CPL 170.65 [1]; see also, People v Weinberg, supra; People v Alejandro, supra, at 138.) The right to be prosecuted by information, though "substantial,” can be waived; and, a defendant who so elects can be prosecuted and even tried solely on the basis of the hearsay allegations of a misdemeanor complaint.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Louis Weinberg
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 10, 1974.
315 N.E.2d 434
Donald H. Zuckerman and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., Richard H. Kuh, District Attorney (Robert Goldschlag, Michael R. Juviler and Lewis R. Friedman of counsel), for respondent.
Jasen.
Cited by 69 opinions  |  Published
Jasen, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of shoplifting on the basis of a “ hearsay ’ ’ misdemeanor complaint filed by a police detective. He was not advised at any time by the court of his right to be prosecuted by information. The issue is whether by pleading and proceeding to trial on the misdemeanor complaint defendant waived his statutory right to a trial by information.

At about 4:00 p.m. on March 4, 1972, defendant, a 44-year-old freelance writer, was observed by a store detective leaving Cimbel’s Department Store, Manhattan, with two shirts valued at $13.99 without having paid for them. The defendant passed through one set of doors and was apprehended by the store detective in a vestibule as he was about to pass through another set of doors to the street. Defendant explained that the “ whole thing was a mistake ” and asked to be allowed to put the shirts back. He was then arrested and an appearance ticket was issued.

On March 20, 1972, the return date of the appearance ticket, a misdemeanor complaint was filed in the Criminal Court of the City of New York by a police detective averring that: “ Depo[*431] nant [sic] is informed by Donna Van Wagner, security officer of Grimbels Store that she observed the defendant take 2 shirts value [sic] at $13.99 from the store without paying for same and without authority or permission.” Defendant subsequently pleaded not guilty and, after several adjournments, trial was held and he was convicted of petit larceny°(Penal Law, § 155.25) and sentenced to an unconditional discharge. The conviction was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Term and leave to appeal was granted by our court. We reverse.

The misdemeanor complaint is an accusatory instrument filed with a local criminal court charging a person with a crime. (CPL 100.10.) It serves merely as the basis for commencement of a criminal action, permitting court arraignment and temporary control over the defendant’s person where there is as yet no prima facie case. However, it is not designed for prosecution purposes and a defendant is not required to plead to a misdemeanor complaint and cannot be tried thereon unless he consents. (CPL 170.65, subds. 1, 3.) By statute, a defendant has the right to be prosecuted by information. (CPL 100.10, subd. 1; 170.65, subd. 1.) The right is substantial and takes into account a fundamental difference between these accusatory instruments — i.e., that á misdemeanor complaint may rest on hearsay allegations while an information may not. (CPL 100.40, subds. 1, 4.)

But, as noted, the right to be prosecuted by information may be waived (CPL 170.65, subds. 1, 3) and that brings us to the central question on this appeal. It is axiomatic in our jurisprudence that a waiver of a substantial right must be made knowingly and intelligently. CPL 170.10 (subd. 4) recognizes this principle, implicitly at least, by requiring that the court advise a defendant of his right to trial by information. Once appraised of this right, a defendant is then in a position to execute a knowing and intelligent waiver, if so advised. In the vast majority of cases, a defendant, aware of the witnesses and the case against him, would most likely execute a waiver. But in the absence of an effective admonition of the right to be prosecuted by information, and here there was none, a waiver or consent to prosecution by misdemeanor complaint cannot be presumed.

[*432] Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Term should be reversed and the misdemeanor complaint dismissed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Order reversed, etc.