N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Public Health / ARTICLE Controlled Substances / TITLE Offenses, Violations and Enforcement
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Health Law § 3383 (2026)

Imitation controlled substances

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 3383. Imitation controlled substances.  1. For purposes of this
section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
  a. "Manufacture" means the production, preparation, compounding,
tableting, processing, encapsulating, packaging, repackaging, labeling
or relabeling of an imitation controlled substance.
  b. "Markings" means a simulated trademark, trade name, imprinting or
other mark, or likeness thereof, of the manufacturer, distributor or
dispenser of a controlled substance or a simulated code number or symbol
or likeness thereof identifying a controlled substance or combination of
such substances.
  c. "Imitation controlled substance" means a substance, other than a
drug for which a prescription is required pursuant to article one
hundred thirty-seven of the education law, that is not a controlled
substance, which by dosage unit appearance, including color, shape and
size and by a representation is represented to be a controlled
substance, as defined in the penal law. Evidence of representations that
the substance is a controlled substance may include but is not limited
to oral or written representations by the manufacturer or seller, as the
case may be, about the substance with regard to:
  (i) its price, nature, use or effect as a controlled substance; or
  (ii) its packaging in a manner normally used for illicit controlled
substances; or
  (iii) markings on the substance.
  2. It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell or possess
with the intent to sell, an imitation controlled substance.
  3. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or use any punch,
die, plate, stone or any other equipment in order to print, imprint, or
reproduce the trademark, trade name or other identifying mark, imprint
or device of another or any likeness of any of the foregoing upon any
substance or container or labeling thereof with intent to manufacture an
imitation controlled substance.
  4. No liability shall be imposed by virtue of this section on any
person licensed pursuant to article one hundred thirty-one of the
education law or licensed under this article who manufactures,
distributed, sells, prescribes, dispenses or possesses an imitation
controlled substance for use as a placebo or for use in clinical
research conducted pursuant to the federal food, drug and cosmetic act.
  5. Nothing in this section shall apply to a noncontrolled substance
that was initially introduced into commerce prior to the initial
introduction into commerce of the controlled substance which it is
alleged to imitate.
  6. In any prosecution under this section it shall be necessary to
prove that the imitation controlled substance was represented to be a
controlled substance; however, it shall not be a defense to a
prosecution under this section that the accused believed the imitation
controlled substance to be a controlled substance.
  7. A violation of subdivision two or three of this section shall be a
class A misdemeanor. A violation of subdivision two or three of this
section by a person previously convicted of a violation of this section
within the preceding five years shall be a class E felony.
  8. If any provision or part of this section or application thereof is
held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions, parts or
applications of this section which can be given effect without the
invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of
this section are severable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: People v. Singleton, 151 Misc. 2d 1051 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Singleton, 151 Misc. 2d 1051 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1991). · cites it 11× “Public Health Law § 3383 (2) provides that, "[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell or possess with the intent to sell, an imitation controlled substance.”
People v. Gonell, 7 Misc. 3d 438 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “40) and a violation of Public Health Law § 3383 (2), which prohibits the sale of “imitation controlled substances.”
People v. Young, 86 A.D.3d 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “Before the transaction was completed at the third arranged meeting, defendant was arrested and a white chunky substance in a plastic bag — which did not test positive as any illegal substance — was taken from his person (see Public Health Law § 3383 [1] [c]; [2]). Charles Woody…”
People v. O'Neal, 38 A.D.3d 1305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of possession of an imitation controlled substance with intent to sell it (Public Health Law § 3383 [2]). Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction…”
People v. Hinckley, 50 A.D.3d 1466 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “er count two of the indictment and vacating the plea with respect to that count of the indictment and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Ontario County Court for further proceedings on count two of the indictment in accordance with the following…”
People v. Jackson, 121 A.D.3d 1185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · cites it 2× “” When the People proceed under this theory, they bear the burden of proving “that the imitation controlled substance was represented [by the defendant] to be a controlled substance” (Public Health Law § 3383 [6]). In the matter before us, the People chose to indict and charge…”
People v. Sessions, 181 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). “Since there must be a new trial, we note that the court correctly denied the defendant’s request that the charge of sale of an imitation controlled substance be submitted to the jury as a lesser included offense (see, Public Health Law § 3383 [2]). It is theoretically possible…”
People v. Walton (Ernie) (N.Y. App. Term. 2018). · cites it 8× “So viewed, the accusatory instrument, consisting of the complaint, supporting depositions and certified laboratory report, was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of…”
People v. Davis, 135 Misc. 2d 841 (1987). · cites it 3× “In his omnibus motion defendant seeks dismissal of the accusatory instrument charging him with possession of an imitation controlled substance (Public Health Law § 3383 [2]) on the ground of insufficiency.”
People v. McLaughlin, 53 Misc. 3d 559 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “Defendant, charged by information with one count of imitation controlled substances (Public Health Law § 3383 [2]), moves for an order dismissing the information pursuant to CPL 170.”
People v. Turner, 204 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “We are also of the view that County Court did not err in denying defendant’s request to charge the jury with respect to the sale of an imitation controlled substance (see, Public Health Law § 3383 [2]) as a lesser included offense of criminal sale of a controlled substance in…”
People v. Wesley (Shelton) (N.Y. App. Term. 2016). · cites it 2× “), rendered December 20, 2011, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of violating Public Health Law § 3383(2), and imposing sentence.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
N.Y. Public Health Law § 3383(2): 2 cases
People v. Wesley (Shelton) (N.Y. App. Term. 2016). “), rendered December 20, 2011, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of violating Public Health Law § 3383(2), and imposing sentence.”
People v. Walton (Ernie) (N.Y. App. Term. 2018). “So viewed, the accusatory instrument, consisting of the complaint, supporting depositions and certified laboratory report, was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of…”
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.