DECISION AND ORDER The defendant is charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree and other related charges listed in the indictment. The defendant moves this Court to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and, upon such inspection, although the defendant seeks dismissal of the entire indictment, he primarily focuses on challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented as to Counts 6-9, 12-14, and 16-17, relating to the possession of cannabis. This Court conducted an in-camera review of the Grand Jury presentation and finds as follows: As to Counts 1-5, 10-12, 15, and 18, the Court finds that the evidence presented was legally sufficient to establish the offenses charged and that there was reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed those offenses (People v. Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97 [1984]; People v. Calbud, Inc., et al., 49 NY2d 389 [1980]; People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d 725 [1995]). The court also finds that the Assistant District Attorney correctly charged the Grand Jury with respect to the applicable law. Therefore, no reduction or dismissal of any additional count is warranted. However, as to Counts 6-9, 12-14, and 16-17, the defendant argues that when the New York State Legislature repealed PL Article 221 and replaced it with PL Article 222, the standard of measurement for determining the weight of the cannabis changed from an aggregate or gross weight standard to a pure weight standard pertaining to the actual weight of the cannabis contained therein. The evidence adduced in the Grand Jury, as supported by the controlled substance analysis laboratory report, only established an aggregate weight of the tested substance. Therefore, the People failed to meet their burden of presenting legally sufficient evidence to sustain said charges and as such the counts specified above must be dismissed. The People contend that PL Article 222 should be interpreted in the way the Legislature intended, which is to reduce the illegal drug market and to reduce violent crime. In doing so, the People take the position that the Legislature intended that the weight requirement of the cannabis statutes are based upon an aggregate weight standard and not a pure weight standard. Furthermore, by interpreting the statute to require a pure weight standard would render the statute unenforceable. Thus, the People maintain the statute was intended to be read in the aggregate weight standard. This Court finds the People’s interpretation to be misplaced based upon a plain language reading of the text of the statute and this Court is guided by the decision in People v. Eldweik, 2023 NYLJ LEXIS 1897 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 2023) which is persuasive and of value in determining that the weight element of the cannabis possessory charges to be based on the pure weight standard and not the aggregate weight standard (see also People v. Houston, 72 AD3d 369 [2d Dept 1980]; People v. Turdo 74 AD2d 614 [2d Dept 1980]). In the instant matter, the People only provided the aggregate weight of the substance allegedly possessed by the defendant. Therefore, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish to a prima facie standard the pure weight of cannabis allegedly possessed by the defendant. Accordingly, Counts 6-9, 12-14, and 16- 17 are dismissed with leave to re-present. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court. This case is next on November 14, 2023, in TAP-1. Dated: October 20, 2023
