N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART Specific Offenses / TITLE Anticipatory Offenses / ARTICLE Conspiracy
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 105.25 (2026)

Conspiracy; jurisdiction and venue

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 105.25 Conspiracy; jurisdiction and venue.
  1. A person may be prosecuted for conspiracy in the county in which he
entered into such conspiracy or in any county in which an overt act in
furtherance thereof was committed.
  2. An agreement made within this state to engage in or cause the
performance of conduct in another jurisdiction is punishable herein as a
conspiracy only when such conduct would constitute a crime both under
the laws of this state if performed herein and under the laws of the
other jurisdiction if performed therein.
  3. An agreement made in another jurisdiction to engage in or cause the
performance of conduct within this state, which would constitute a crime
herein, is punishable herein only when an overt act in furtherance of
such conspiracy is committed within this state. Under such
circumstances, it is no defense to a prosecution for conspiracy that the
conduct which is the objective of the conspiracy would not constitute a
crime under the laws of the other jurisdiction if performed therein.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2021 · leading case: People v. Giordano, 663 N.E.2d 588 (N.Y. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Giordano, 663 N.E.2d 588 (N.Y. 1995). · cites it 2× “40 (1) ( see also , Penal Law § 105.25 [1]). In short, the court instructed the jury that if it found certain factual matters proven, those facts would establish jurisdiction.”
People v. Ribowsky, 568 N.E.2d 1197 (N.Y. 1991). “40 [1] [a]; Penal Law § 105.25 [1]). Defendant maintains that the perjury charges cannot be used to sustain jurisdiction because those charges were not alleged as overt acts in the conspiracy indictment.”
People v. Velazquez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03078 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “40 [1] [b]; Penal Law § 105.25 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve his contention that his guilty plea was coerced or his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his allocation to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, as the record does not reflect that he made an…”
People v. Leisner, 535 N.E.2d 647 (N.Y. 1989). “In addition, a conspirator may be prosecuted in the county in which he entered into the conspiracy or in any county in which an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed (Penal Law § 105.25 [1]). While such rules give the prosecution helpful tools in proving these…”
People v. Sosnik, 569 N.E.2d 1019 (N.Y. 1991). “In order to sustain jurisdiction over the conspiracy and substantive charges against defendants, the People were required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the commission of an overt act in Kings County by a member of the conspiracy with whom defendant had agreed to…”
People v. Manfredi, 166 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “Most of the overt acts committed by the conspirators took place there, with the result that Kings County had jurisdiction over the conspiracy as a whole as well as over its component object crimes, including those of the defendant which were committed largely in the Bronx (see,…”
People v. Wilson, 141 A.D.3d 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). ““A person may be prosecuted for conspiracy in the county in which he [or she] entered into such conspiracy or in any county in which an overt act in furtherance thereof was committed” (Penal Law § 105.25 [1]). In addition, a person may be convicted in a particular county of an…”
People v. Nabi, 2018 NY Slip Op 7332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018). “The Legislature has also provided that a person may be prosecuted for conspiracy in the county in which he or she entered into such conspiracy or in any county in which an overt act in furtherance thereof was committed ( see Penal Law § 105.25; People v Ribowsky , 77 NY2d at 292…”
People v. Morgan, 209 A.D.2d 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “We reject defendant’s contentions that the conspiracy count *953 of the indictment is jurisdictionally defective (Penal Law § 105.25 [1]; see, People v Peckens, 153 NY 576 ) and that defendant’s retrial is barred by the constitutional and statutory protections against double…”
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.