People v. Herbin, 86 A.D.3d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Herbin, 86 A.D.3d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2020–2025 · 2 courts · …officers released the blade simply by flicking the knife with their wrists at p. 446 ✓
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Knight
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
The challenged statutes defining and prohibiting possession of gravity knives ( see Penal Law §§ 265.00[5], 265.01[1], 265.02[1]) are not unconstitutionally vague, either facially or as applied to defendant, because they provide "notice to the public and clear guidelines to law enforcement as to the precise characteristics that bring a knife under the statutory proscription" ( People v Herbin , 86 AD3d 446, 446-47 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]; see Copeland v Vance , 893 F3d 101 [2d Cir 2018]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Elliot Parrilla
NY · 2016 · confidence medium
People v Herbin, 86 AD3d 446, 447 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rodriguez (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The court properly instructed the jury regarding defendant's possession of a gravity knife ( see People v Herbin , 86 AD3d 446, 447 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cabrera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The proposed testimony was unnecessary and potentially confusing (see People v Herbin, 86 AD3d 446, 447 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The trial court’s exercise of its discretion in limiting the testimony of a proposed expert on the subject of the manufacture, purpose, and availability of the type of knife which the defendant possessed did not limit his ability to present a *899 defense (see People v Herbin, 86 AD3d 446, 446-447 [2011]; People v Best, 57 AD3d 279 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Polonsky
N.Y. App. Term. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant’s timely request to elicit expert testimony on the operability issue, accompanied by a detailed offer of proof as to the expert’s proposed testimony (cf. People v Best, 57 AD3d 279, 280 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 756 [2009]), should have been granted, at least to the extent of allowing defendant’s expert to provide explanatory testimony as to the manner of operation of the knife in question {see and compare People v Herbin, 86 AD3d 446, 446, 447 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Giles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
As an alternative holding (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]), we reject defendant’s challenges to the statutes relating to possession of gravity knives (see People v Herbin, 86 AD3d 446, 446-447 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Giles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
As an alternative holding (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]), we reject defendant’s challenges to the statutes relating to possession of gravity knives (see People v Herbin, 86 AD3d 446, 446-447 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" Holly Jarvis v. Officer Knapp et al.
N.D.N.Y. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Herbin, 86 A.D.3d 446, 446 , 927 N.Y.S.2d 54 (2011) (holding that the definition of a gravity knife was met where “officers release[d] the blade simply by flicking the knife with their wrists”).
discussed Cited "see" Barnes v. NYPD Police Officer Joseph Carolan
2d Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Herbin, 86 A.D.3d 446, 446 (1st Dep’t 2011) (holding that the definition of a gravity knife was met where “officers release[d] the blade simply by flicking the knife with their wrists”).
discussed Cited "see" Copeland v. Vance
2d Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Herbin , 86 A.D.3d 446 , 927 N.Y.S.2d 54 , 55-56 (1st Dep't 2011) (finding the evidence sufficient to sustain a gravity knife conviction where "officers release[d] the blade simply by flicking the knife with their wrists"); Neal , 913 N.Y.S.2d at 194 (similar); cf. Parrilla , 27 N.Y.3d at 402 , 53 N.E.3d 719 (reciting that an officer "tested the knife to determine whether it was a gravity knife by flicking his wrist with a downward motion").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Copeland v. Vance (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
At trial, plaintiffs’ counsel and Douglas Ritter both repeatedly sought to demonstrate what they purported was the Wrist-Flick test. 7 The New York Court of Appeals recently confirmed that a knife that opens via the Wrist-Flick test meets the statutory definition of a gravity knife. 8 See People v. Sans, 26 N.Y.3d 13, 17 , 41 N.E.3d 333 (2015) (statement in criminal complaint that the defendant’s knife opened “with centrifugal force” conveyed that the officer “flicked the knife open with his wrist”); see also People v. Herbin, 86 A.D.3d 446 , 927 N.Y.S.2d 54 , 55-56 (1st Dep’t 20…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Messina
N.Y. App. Term. · 2014 · signal: compare · confidence medium
People v Abney, 13 NY3d 251, 266 [2009]; compare Beizer v Schwartz, 15 AD3d 433, 434 [2005], with People v Herbin, 86 AD3d 446, 447 [2011]) and that, at a nonjury trial, it is for the court to determine whether the proffered expert testimony would assist it, as the finder of fact, to reach its verdict (People v Lee, 96 NY2d 157, 162 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Reginald Herbin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 14, 2011.
86 A.D.3d 446
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). Although defendant’s expert testified that the knife possessed by defendant could be opened by pressing a thumb disk, he also testified that he observed the officers release the blade simply by flicking the knife with their wrists, which satisfies the definition of a gravity knife (see People v Neal, 79 AD3d 523, 524 [2010]).

Contrary to defendant’s claim, the statutory prohibition of possession of a gravity knife (Penal Law § 265.01 [1]; see also Penal Law § 265.02 [1] [elevating to felony]) is not unconstitutionally vague. The statute defines a gravity knife as “any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal[*447] force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device” (Penal Law § 265.00 [5]). This language provides notice to the public and clear guidelines to law enforcement as to the precise characteristics that bring a knife under the statutory proscription (see People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 420-421 [2003]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding a physics professor from offering expert testimony concerning the meanings of several physics concepts. The proposed testimony would likely have confused the jury by defining centrifugal force inconsistently with the statutory definition of a gravity knife, and by introducing other physics terms that are not pertinent to the elements of the offense. Moreover, the court adequately instructed the jury as to the definition of a gravity knife such that any technical knowledge outside the ken of the typical juror was unnecessary (see People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990]).

The court also correctly instructed the jury that, to convict defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, it was required to find that he knew he possessed a knife, but did not have to know it was a gravity knife (see Neal, 79 AD3d at 524; People v Best, 57 AD3d 279, 280 [2008], Iv denied 12 NY3d 756 [2009]; see also People v Wood, 58 AD3d 242, 253 n 5 [2008], Iv denied 12 NY3d 823 [2009]).

The court properly rejected defendant’s other requests for jury instructions. The proposed instructions would have added new elements to the definition of gravity knife. That is the province of the Legislature, not the courts. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Acosta, Richter and Román, JJ.