N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART General Provisions / TITLE General Purposes, Rules of Construction, and Definitions / ARTICLE General Purposes
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 1.05 (2026)

General purposes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 1.05 General purposes.
  The general purposes of the provisions of this chapter are:
  1. To proscribe conduct which unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or
threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests;
  2. To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct proscribed and of
the sentences authorized upon conviction;
  3. To define the act or omission and the accompanying mental state
which constitute each offense;
  4. To differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor
offenses and to prescribe proportionate penalties therefor;
  5. To provide for an appropriate public response to particular
offenses, including consideration of the consequences of the offense for
the victim, including the victim's family, and the community; and
  6. To insure the public safety by preventing the commission of
offenses through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized,
the rehabilitation of those convicted, the promotion of their successful
and productive reentry and reintegration into society, and their
confinement when required in the interests of public protection.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: People v. Adorno, 2022 NY Slip Op 05856 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Adorno, 2022 NY Slip Op 05856 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “, societal protection, rehabilitation, and deterrence'" ( People v Kordish , 140 AD3d at 982-983, quoting People v Farrar , 52 NY2d at 305 ; see Penal Law § 1.05; People v Kerringer , 195 AD3d at 862 ).”
People v. Ryan, 626 N.E.2d 51 (NY 1993). “, Penal Law § 1.05 [4]). Our cases, too, have suggested that knowledge of the weight is an element.”
United States Ex Rel. Lois Sero v. Peter Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “N.Y. Penal Law § 1.05 (4, 5) (McKinney 1967).”
Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2006). “”); N.Y. Penal Law § 1.05 (“The general purposes of the provisions of this chapter are: .”
Acosta v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 946 N.E.2d 731 (NY 2011). “This general bar was enacted to further certain goals that the Legislature has identified as among the “general purposes” of the Penal Law, namely, “the rehabilitation of those convicted” and “the promotion of their successful and productive reentry and reintegration into…”
People v. Kohl, 527 N.E.2d 1182 (NY 1988). “This is fundamentally contrary to well-settled criminal law principles (see, Penal Law § 1.05; People v Blanchard, 288 NY 145 ).”
People v. Smith, 217 A.D.2d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). “brutal strangulation and bludgeoning of the four-year-old victim, and the calculating and cruel way in which those acts were carried out, we cannot say that the sentencing court did not appropriately balance the competing values of "societal protection, rehabilitation and…”
People v. Bryant, 137 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 2× “After giving due consideration to the defendant's particular circumstances, we exercise our discretion to modify the sentence to the extent indicated ( see People v Farrar , 52 NY2d 302, 305 [1981]; Penal Law § 1.05[6]). All concur except Tom, J.”
People v. Torres, 2021 NY Slip Op 06011 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “Contrary to defendant's contentions, it is clear from the record that County Court rendered sentence after considering the facts underlying the crimes and weighing the attendant aggravating and mitigating factors, including defendant's age, physical disability and lack of…”
Hernandez v. Greene (In Re Greene), 397 B.R. 688 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008). “2d *695 331 (3d Dept 1968); see also Penal Law § 1.05[1]. Hence, not only are the maliciousness and willfulness elements of § 523(a)(6) encompassed within the relevant criminal statute and the judgment of conviction, but the elements of the two legal statutes are practically…”
Carmona v. Ward, 436 F. Supp. 1153 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). “In the latter case, the California Supreme Court, interpreting the California constitution, ruled that a statutory provision absolutely precluding parole consideration during the first ten years of a mandatory ten years to life imprisonment sentence was, as applied to the…”
People v. Scallero, 122 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). “These factors were readily inferable from the evidence adduced at trial, and consideration of them was not inconsistent with the purpose of the Penal Law "[t]o provide for an appropriate public response to particular offenses, including consideration of the consequences of the…”
Show all 40 citing cases →
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.