Summary
In People v Roden (21 N.Y.2d 810) the Court of Appeals held that an unloaded gun was a dangerous weapon within the meaning of subdivision 1 of section 2124 of the former Penal Law. At that time, however, there were no requirements comparable to those now contained in the Penal Law (§ 10, subd 13).
Summary of this case from People v. BriggsOpinion
Argued January 9, 1968
Decided February 15, 1968
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, EMILIO NUNEZ, J.
Joel A. Brenner and Anthony F. Marra for appellant.
Isidore Dollinger, District Attorney ( Peter R. De Filippi and Daniel J. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
Order affirmed in the following memorandum: We agree with the trial court that coram nobis does not lie under the circumstances herein. We note, however, that we disagree with its conclusion that an unloaded gun is not a dangerous weapon within the meaning of subdivision 1 of section 2124 of the former Penal Law. Of course, to this extent we also disagree with the holding in People v. Ahmed ( 27 A.D.2d 729, revd. on other grounds 20 N.Y.2d 958).
Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, KEATING, BREITEL and JASEN.