New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 20.20 (2026)

Geographical jurisdiction of offenses; jurisdiction of state

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 20.20  Geographical jurisdiction of offenses; jurisdiction of state.
  Except as otherwise provided in this section and section 20.30, a
person may be convicted in the criminal courts of this state of an
offense defined by the laws of this state, committed either by his own
conduct or by the conduct of another for which he is legally accountable
pursuant to section 20.00 of the penal law, when:
  1.  Conduct occurred within this state sufficient to establish:
  (a)  An element of such offense; or
  (b)  An attempt to commit such offense; or
  (c)  A conspiracy or criminal solicitation to commit such offense, or
otherwise to establish the complicity of at least one of the persons
liable therefor; provided that the jurisdiction accorded by this
paragraph extends only to conviction of those persons whose
conspiratorial or other conduct of complicity occurred within this
state; or
  2.  Even though none of the conduct constituting such offense may have
occurred within this state:
  (a)  The offense committed was a result offense and the result
occurred within this state.  If the offense was one of homicide, it is
presumed that the result, namely the death of the victim, occurred
within this state if the victim's body or a part thereof was found
herein; or
  (b)  The statute defining the offense is designed to prevent the
occurrence of a particular effect in this state and the conduct
constituting the offense committed was performed with intent that it
would have such effect herein; or
  (c)  The offense committed was an attempt to commit a crime within
this state; or
  (d)  The offense committed was conspiracy to commit a crime within
this state and an overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy occurred
within this state; or
  3.  The offense committed was one of omission to perform within this
state a duty imposed by the laws of this state.  In such case, it is
immaterial whether such person was within or outside this state at the
time of the omission.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2004–2010 · leading case: People v. Carvajal, 845 N.E.2d 1225 (NY 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Carvajal, 845 N.E.2d 1225 (NY 2005). · cites it 4× “Discussion The Federal and State Constitutions In this case we address whether a New York criminal court lacked territorial jurisdiction, allegedly conferred under Criminal Procedure Law § 20.20, to prosecute defendant for three counts of criminal possession of a controlled…”

Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “In addition, Criminal Procedure Law §§ 20.20 and 20.50 deal with the State’s geographical jurisdiction over criminal offenses within the state, and localities (cities, towns, and villages), respectively.”

People v. Carvajal, 14 A.D.3d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). “Criminal Procedure Law § 20.20, which in essence requires that “either the alleged conduct or some consequence of it must have occurred within the State” (see McLaughlin at 471), sets forth in full the circumstances under which New York State may assert criminal jurisdiction:…”

People v. Cespedes, 9 Misc. 3d 705 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005). “) “[M]ere thoughts or plans” do not meet the “conduct” requirement of Criminal Procedure Law § 20.20. (People v Kassebaum, 95 NY2d 611, 619 [2001], cert denied 532 US 1069 [2001].”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.