The Court of Appeals has long held that nonprocedural statutes "are not to be applied retroactively absent a plainly manifested legislative intent to that effect" (People v Oliver, 1 N.Y.2d 152, 157). Here, the legislature did not explicitly state that the amendment should be applied retroactively (see People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 603; People v Alston, 184 A.D.3d 415; People Caviness, 176 A.D.3d 522; see also People v Busch, 76 Misc.3d 136 [A]; People v Banos, 68 Misc.3d 1). While the Court of Appeals has carved out an exception to this general rule when the legislature passes an ameliorative amendment that reduces the punishment for a particular crime (see People v Oliver, 1 N.Y.2d at 158-160; see also People v Behlog, 74 N.Y.2d 237, 240), it has distinguished that situation from cases such as this in which the law decriminalizes certain conduct.

The Court of Appeals has long held that nonprocedural statutes "are not to be applied retroactively absent a plainly manifested legislative intent to that effect" ( People v. Oliver, 1 N.Y.2d 152, 157, 151 N.Y.S.2d 367, 134 N.E.2d 197 ). Here, the legislature did not explicitly state that the amendment should be applied retroactively (seePeople v. Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 603, 141 N.Y.S.3d 303 ; People v. Alston, 184 A.D.3d 415, 123 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; People v. Caviness, 176 A.D.3d 522, 108 N.Y.S.3d 838 ; see alsoPeople v. Busch, 76 Misc.3d 136[A], 2022 WL 4589206 ; People v. Banos, 68 Misc.3d 1, 125 N.Y.S.3d 833 ). While the Court of Appeals has carved out an exception to this general rule when the legislature passes an ameliorative amendment that reduces the punishment for a particular crime (seePeople v. Oliver, 1 N.Y.2d at 158–160, 151 N.Y.S.2d 367, 134 N.E.2d 197 ; see alsoPeople v. Behlog, 74 N.Y.2d 237, 240, 544 N.Y.S.2d 804, 543 N.E.2d 69 )

In response, the People consent to the vacatur of that conviction in the exercise of this court's interest of justice jurisdiction given the court's decision in Cracco v Vance (376 F.Supp.3d 304 [SD NY 2019]) and the amended legislation. In light of our decisions in People v Banos (68 Misc.3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]) and People v Elmaskeny (72 Misc.3d 138 [A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50766[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]), as well as decisions from the Appellate Divisions in the First and Second Departments (see e.g. People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 603 [2021]; People v Merrill, 187 A.D.3d 1058 [2020]; People v Caviness, 176 A.D.3d 522 [2019]), we grant the requested relief, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is modified by vacating so much of the judgment as convicted defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing the count of the accusatory instrument charging that offense.

On May 30, 2019, Penal Law § 265.01 was amended by removing gravity knives from subsection one thereof (see L 2019, ch 34, § 1 [eff May 30, 2019]). Under the circumstances presented, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]), we reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the accusatory instrument (see e.g. People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 603 [2021]; People v Merrill, 187 A.D.3d 1058 [2020]; People v Caviness, 176 A.D.3d 522 [2019]; People v Banos, 68 Misc.3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

Defendant argues that the change in the law should be applied retroactively because, among other things, he pleaded guilty 16 days prior to the effective date of the amended statute. In response, the People contend that, while it is clear that the amendment does not apply retroactively, they do not oppose reversal of defendant's conviction in the exercise of this court's interest of justice jurisdiction in light of this court's decision in People v Banos (68 Misc.3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]), as well as decisions from the Appellate Divisions in the First and Second Departments (see e.g. People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 603 [2021]; People v Merrill, 187 A.D.3d 1058 [2020]; People v Caviness, 176 A.D.3d 522 [2019]). Under the circumstances, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]), we reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the accusatory instrument.

01 (1) was amended to decriminalize the simple possession of a gravity knife (L 2019, ch 34, § 1). The People, in the exercise of their broad prosecutorial discretion, have agreed that the indictment should be dismissed under the particular circumstances of this case and in light of the recent amendment decriminalizing the possession of gravity knives, notwithstanding the fact that the recent amendment does not require retroactive application (seePeople v. Johnson , 192 A.D.3d 603, 603, 141 N.Y.S.3d 303 [1st Dept. 2021] ; People v. Banos , 68 Misc. 3d 1, 4-5, 125 N.Y.S.3d 833 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1064, 129 N.Y.S.3d 381, 152 N.E.3d 1183 [2020] ; see generallyPeople v. Oliver , 1 N.Y.2d 152, 157, 151 N.Y.S.2d 367, 134 N.E.2d 197 [1956] ).

01 (1) was amended to decriminalize the simple possession of a gravity knife (L 2019, ch 34, § 1). The People, in the exercise of their broad prosecutorial discretion, have agreed that the indictment should be dismissed under the particular circumstances of this case and in light of the recent amendment decriminalizing the possession of gravity knives, notwithstanding the fact that the recent amendment does not require retroactive application (see People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 603, 603 [1st Dept 2021]; People v Banos, 68 Misc.3d 1, 4-5 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1064 [2020]; see generally People v Oliver, 1 N.Y.2d 152, 157 [1956]). We agree, and therefore we reverse the judgment and dismiss the indictment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6]; People v Merrill, 187 A.D.3d 1058, 1059 [2d Dept 2020]; People v Alston, 184 A.D.3d 415, 415 [1st Dept 2020]; People v Caviness, 176 A.D.3d 522, 522 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1076 [2019]).

On May 30, 2019, Penal Law § 265.01 was amended by removing gravity knives from subsection one thereof (see L 2019, ch 34, § 1 [eff May 30, 2019]). Under the circumstances presented, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]), we reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the accusatory instrument (see e.g. People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 603 [2021]; People v Merrill, 187 A.D.3d 1058 [2020]; People v Caviness, 176 A.D.3d 522 [2019]; People v Banos, 68 Misc.3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

Defendant argues that the change in the law should be applied retroactively because, among other things, he pleaded guilty 16 days prior to the effective date of the amended statute. In response, the People contend that, while it is clear that the amendment does not apply retroactively, they do not oppose reversal of defendant's conviction in the exercise of this court's interest of justice jurisdiction in light of this court's decision in People v Banos (68 Misc.3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]), as well as decisions from the Appellate Divisions in the First and Second Departments (see e.g. People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 603 [2021]; People v Merrill, 187 A.D.3d 1058 [2020]; People v Caviness, 176 A.D.3d 522 [2019]). Under the circumstances, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]), we reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the accusatory instrument.

01 (1) was amended to decriminalize the simple possession of a gravity knife (L 2019, ch 34, § 1). The People, in the exercise of their broad prosecutorial discretion, have agreed that the indictment should be dismissed under the particular circumstances of this case and in light of the recent amendment decriminalizing the possession of gravity knives, notwithstanding the fact that the recent amendment does not require retroactive application (see People v Johnson, 192 A.D.3d 603, 603 [1st Dept 2021]; People v Banos, 68 Misc.3d 1, 4-5 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1064 [2020]; see generally People v Oliver, 1 N.Y.2d 152, 157 [1956]). We agree, and therefore we reverse the judgment and dismiss the indictment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6]; People v Merrill, 187 A.D.3d 1058, 1059 [2d Dept 2020]; People v Alston, 184 A.D.3d 415, 415 [1st Dept 2020]; People v Caviness, 176 A.D.3d 522, 522 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1076 [2019]).