In People v. William, 191 Misc 2d 293 [App Term, 2d Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 682 [2002]) the Appellate Term, Second Department, upheld the denial of a motion to dismiss an information containing the sole allegation that an arresting officer recovered a gravity knife from the defendant's pants pocket (see People v. William, 188 Misc 2d 869, 870, 729 N.Y.S.2d 826 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2001]). The lower court rejected the defendant's contention that Dumas required a dismissal, observing that its rationale had never been applied to an accusatory instrument alleging the possession of a gravity knife. (188 Misc 2d at 871.) It also noted that a gravity knife is identifiable "by its appearance alone," and that, therefore, it "is clearly distinguishable from marihuana or other controlled substances where the items actually must be tested despite its appearance in order to confirm its identity." (Id. at 872.) In affirming, the Appellate Term held that an information need not contain language that a gravity knife fulfills the statutory definition or even that it is operational. "Although proof of same may be required for conviction, it is not necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of an information." (191 Misc 2d 293, 742 N.Y.S.2d 772 .)