KAREN M. WILUTIS, J.
Edward Pshedesky, West Sayville, NY, for the Defendant.
ADA Alexander D. Sylvan, for Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney of the County of Suffolk, for the People.
KAREN M. WILUTIS, J.
It is, ORDERED that this motion by the defendant to dismiss for insufficiency the within accusatory instruments charging criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (PL § 165.40) is denied. It is alleged that the defendant possessed jewelry stolen during the move of personal property and that he pawned same on the day of the alleged theft and on the next day. The defendant argues that three movers were present when the property in question was allegedly stolen and that those persons are not specifically identified by the owner of the property. Said argument is unavailing. The requisite knowledge element in these matters does not relate to the person or persons who stole the property, but rather the defendant's knowledge that the property he allegedly pawned was stolen. It has been held that the knowledge element of PL § 165.40 may be demonstrated by circumstantial evidence and that recent exclusive possession of the property in question may give rise to an inference of knowledge that the property is stolen. (See People v. Zorcik, 67 N.Y.2d 670 [1986] ; People v. Von Werne, 41 N.Y.2d 584 [1977] ). "[F]or pleading purposes, the requisite mental state may be alleged on the basis of a logical implication of the act itself or upon the surrounding circumstances." (People v. Prevete, 10 Misc.3d 78, 809 N.Y.S.2d 777 [App Term 2nd Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005] (citations omitted)). Additionally, the moving papers specifically refer to the contents of the defendant's written statement, in which he admits that he "had a bad feeling about the jewelry-that it might be stolen-but pawned it anyway." It has also been held that, "[s]o long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading." (People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354 [2000] ). The sufficiency standard on a pretrial motion to dismiss does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Questions of fact or potential defenses are matters to be resolved at trial. It is the opinion of this Court that the allegations set forth in the accusatory instruments herein, read in conjunction with their supporting depositions, are sufficient to charge violations of PL § 165.40.