equivalency standard in New York

2025"In this context, the Court of Appeals has 'applied a strict equivalency standard that examines the elements of the foreign conviction to determine whether the crime corresponds to a New York [violent] felony, usually without reference to the facts giving rise to that conviction'" ( People v Salako , 165 AD3d 846 , 847, quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y. , 8 NY3d 745, 750-751 ). "'When a statute-to-statute comparison reveals differences in the elements such that it is possible to violate the foreign statute without engaging in conduct that is a [viol

2020Hence, we expressly rejected the application of the strict equivalency standard used to determine whether a prior foreign conviction is a predicate conviction for purposes of mandatory enhanced recidivist sentencing pursuant to article 70 of the Penal Law (see North, 8 NY3d at 752 ).

2020The strict equivalency standard permits the examination of only the elements of the crime that are the subject of the foreign conviction to determine whether that conviction corresponds to a New York felony (see People v Muniz, 74 NY2d 464, 467-468 [1989]).

2017Indeed, we have specifically explained that, in that analysis, a reviewing court may consider "the statutes" that "defin[e] the relevant crimes" (Jurgins, 26 3 There is a narrow exception to the strict equivalency standard. "[W]here the foreign statute under which the defendant was convicted renders criminal several different acts, some of which would constitute felonies and others of which would constitute only misdemeanors if committed in New York[,] . . . . . the recitals in the accusatory instrument that describe the particular act or acts underlying the charge are necessary to the extent

2020This is because “[a]t bottom, the strict equivalency test protects from the imposition of a predicate felony offender sentence based on the mere accusations underlying the foreign conviction—allegations, of course, of which a defendant may not have been convicted” (People v Helms, 30 NY3d 259 , 263-264 [2017]; People v Jurgins, 26 NY3d 607, 613 [2015]).

2017Consequently, we now re-emphasize that the strict equivalency test allows a reviewing court to examine a foreign statute that a defendant has been convicted of violating, as well as any foreign statute or case law that informs the interpretation of a foreign code breached by the defendant (see Jurgins, 26 NY3d at 613 n 3; Gonzalez, 61 NY2d at 591-592 ).

2020It does not involve a review of the allegations in the accusatory instrument unless the foreign crime describes several different acts—both misdemeanor and felony—as criminal (see id.; cf. People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586, 590-591 [1984]).

2017Consequently, we now re-emphasize that the strict equivalency test allows a reviewing court to examine a foreign statute that a defendant has been convicted of violating, as well as any foreign statute or case law that informs the interpretation of a foreign code breached by the defendant (see Jurgins, 26 NY3d at 613 n 3; Gonzalez, 61 NY2d at 591-592 ).

2016While the strict equivalency test may involve “ ‘technical distinctions’ ” (Ramos, 19 NY3d at 419 ), this does not mean that the test is premised solely on verbiage and without an analysis of substantive law.

2016While the strict equivalency test may involve “ ‘technical distinctions’ ” (Ramos, 19 NY3d at 419 ), this does not mean that the test is premised solely on verbiage and without an analysis of substantive law.

2025"In this context, the Court of Appeals has 'applied a strict equivalency standard that examines the elements of the foreign conviction to determine whether the crime corresponds to a New York [violent] felony, usually without reference to the facts giving rise to that conviction'" ( People v Salako , 165 AD3d 846 , 847, quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y. , 8 NY3d 745, 750-751 ). "'When a statute-to-statute comparison reveals differences in the elements such that it is possible to violate the foreign statute without engaging in conduct that is a [viol

2022Thus, "[a]s a general rule, [the court's] inquiry is limited to a comparison of the crimes' elements as they are respectively defined in the foreign and New York penal statutes" ( People v Muniz , 74 NY2d 464, 467-468 [1989]; see Yusuf , 19 NY3d at 321 ; People v Olah , 300 NY 96, 98 [1949]).

2022Thus, "[a]s a general rule, [the court's] inquiry is limited to a comparison of the crimes' elements as they are respectively defined in the foreign and New York penal statutes" ( People v Muniz , 74 NY2d 464, 467-468 [1989]; see Yusuf , 19 NY3d at 321 ; People v Olah , 300 NY 96, 98 [1949]).

2018To the contrary, the Court of Appeals has unanimously held that general intent is the culpable mental state for the analogous Penal Law crimes of rape and sodomy ( see People v Williams , 81 NY2d 303, 318 [1993, Bellacosa, J., dissenting]; see also Penal Law § 15.15 [2]) [FN2] .