New York

Published on: April 24, 2013

Court Distinguishes between Attempted Grand Larceny and Grand Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A man broke into and entered a dwelling house. Once inside, he committed grand larceny by taking away from the premises properties belonging to the owner of the dwelling house which amounted to more than one hundred dollars.

The prosecutor was charged under an information with two crimes: the breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny; and grand larceny. The man pleaded not guilty and he was tried before a jury. He was later convicted by that jury for the two crimes of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. The trial court judge sentenced the man to imprisonment of two years for the grand larceny and one year for the breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, both sentences to be served concurrently.

The man appealed the conviction and the sentences imposed upon him. The sole ground of his appeal was that he should not have been charged, tried, convicted or sentenced to two separate crimes of breaking and entering to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. He claims that the grand larceny should be comprehended in the one charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny because the grand larceny was just an element or a facet of the crime of breaking and entering.

Published on: April 24, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Grand Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A man knocked on an apartment door. He claimed to be delivering something for the resident in the apartment. He asked the resident for some personal identification. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the resident of the apartment left the apartment door open and left the man at the door while she went inside the apartment to get her ID. With the apartment door left open, a television set can be seen which was put on a stand situated very near the open apartment door. On the floor near the television, there were sweaters scattered all over. The man took the TV and the sweaters on the floor.

A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said the man was seen by another delivery man who was making a delivery in a nearby apartment at the same time. He saw the bogus delivery man go inside the apartment and leave holding the TV set and the sweaters. He also saw the bogus delivery man leave the apartment and ride a bike while carrying the TV set and the sweaters. The delivery man followed the bogus delivery man and saw that at the nearest corner, the bogus delivery man dropped the TV and the sweaters. He left them there on the street where they fell. And he rode the bike all the way to a nearby restaurant. At the restaurant premises, the bogus delivery man left the bike. He went to the parking area of the restaurant and rode in a car. The delivery man wrote down the license plate of the bogus delivery man’s car. When a police cruiser came by, the delivery man told them his story and gave them the license plate of the bogus delivery man. He also led them to the spot where the TV and the sweaters were dropped.

The bogus delivery man was later arrested. He was charged with two crimes in one information: he was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. The bogus delivery man moved for a trial without a jury. The man was convicted with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny but he was convicted only of petit larceny and not grand larceny because the prosecution failed to prove that the properties taken were valued beyond $100.

Published on: April 2, 2013

Defendant Claims There was Insufficient Evidence for Grand Jury Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 6 November 1992, at approximately 3:13 a.m., two (2) Department of Public Safety Officers at a University observed defendant carrying a dormitory lounge chair on his head as he crossed a bridge on the campus. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that upon being stopped, defendant informed the officers that he had obtained the chair in a Hall, a residence located on the North Campus, and was taking it to the West Campus as a prank, but defendant declined to confirm whether he was a student. He stated that he had no identification on his person and, despite repeated requests he refused to identify himself in any manner. Thereafter, he was informed that he would be referred to the University Judicial Administrator if he was a student, and that if he was not a student, he would be charged with petit larceny in City Court. After approximately 10 minutes of fruitless inquiries, one of the officers expressed impatience with defendant’s uncooperative behavior, at which point defendant stated that he did have identification after all, and began reaching into his pocket. One of the officers stated that he would remove the identification from defendant’s pocket himself and ordered defendant to turn and face the police car. When the officer reached for defendant’s pocket, defendant slapped his hands away. Informed that he was under arrest, defendant bolted from the officers and ran toward the gorge under the bridge. He was pursued by the other officer who caught him by the ankle as he lay on his back on the steep slope. Defendant demanded to be let go, but the officer refused. Defendant then rolled over and dragged her down the side of the gorge until she hit a concrete abutment and smashed her face and broke her teeth. Defendant ultimately escaped.

Consequently, defendant was indicted in the County Court on four counts: three misdemeanors, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, resisting arrest, and one felony, assault in the second degree. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in its entirety which was granted by the court. However, on appeal the Appellate Division reversed the decision, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the Grand Jury to indict on the larceny and possession of stolen property counts, as defendant’s larcenous intent could be inferred from the circumstances and his admissions; and that the evidence before the Grand Jury was sufficient to sustain the charge of resisting arrest, and defendant’s intentional acts in preventing his arrest constituted sufficient evidence of the crime of assault. An appeal thereafter followed.

Published on: March 20, 2013

Court Decides if Defendants Acts were Sufficient Heinous to Justify Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the defendant is a self-styled Hispanic civil rights advocate. He threatened to wreak one-half million dollars’ worth of damage to Citibank’s automatic teller machines in an attempt to induce Citibank to give money to several organizations.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the evening of June 4, 1984, thirty-one Citibank 24-hour banking facilities in the Bronx and Manhattan were vandalized, and glue and other unidentified substances poured into the part of the automatic teller machines into which customers insert their cards to activate the machines. The damage was extensive. In all, sixty-eight machines had to be repaired.

In twenty-one of the twenty-seven Manhattan facilities, one of defendant’s two Citibank banking cards were used to enter the facility before the machines were damaged. At one location, defendant’s card was used to complete a transaction at an automatic teller machine shortly before it was vandalized. At another, a video camera recorded defendant’s entry into the facility just after one of his cards had been used to unlock the door, and moments before the machines inside were damaged. The next day, defendant, while denying responsibility, spoke to a Citibank regional manager and told him that 109 of Citibank’s automatic teller machines had been “hit” and glue poured into them. Two days later, defendant told several Citibank executives that he was not asking for anything for himself, only for the “Hispanic community.” Otherwise, defendant explained, it “would be extortion.”

Published on: March 18, 2013

Defendant Charged with Stealing Contents of Airplane Hangar

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, a security officer assigned at an airline’s hangar at Kennedy Airport was approached on numerous occasions in the spring of 1976 by the defendant, who indicated an interest in securing entry to the hangar and in taking money from the safe therein. The security officer was offered the chance to make some money if he co-operated. A New York Criminal Lawyer said during the course of these conversations, he was asked, in increasing detail, about the alarm system in operation at the hangar. The security officer reported these conversations to his supervisor, the head of security of the airline.

The security officer had been in continual touch with his supervisors and the police had been alerted. Indeed, by the time Defendant was permitted into the hangar, one gate was manned by an undercover police officer posing as a security guard.

On October 26, 1976, Defendants called the security officer and told him they wanted to “come in that night.” At 11:15 P. M. The security officer met defendant at a diner. At 11:30 they entered a car and were joined by the co-defendants, who was carrying an attache case. Enroute to the airport, defendant discussed the job with the security officer. Defendant told him that in five years, “when its all over,” his share would be sent to him. Defendant advised him that in order to make it “look good” he would shackle him and take his gun. The other security guard would be tied and dropped off at the edge of the airport.

Published on: March 1, 2013

Court Discusses Charge of Criminal Facilitiation

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted on charges of four counts of grand larceny in the second degree. He was arraigned and he was tried. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that after the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, the counsel for the accused asked the court that instead of the four counts of grand larceny, the court consider instead charging the accused of four counts of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree. The trial court found that criminal facilitation in the fourth degree was a lesser included offense of Grand Larceny.

The trial court charged the man instead of four counts of criminal facilitation. The jury convicted him of the same charges and he was sentenced. The accused filed a motion to set aside the verdict of guilt on the ground that the lesser criminal offense of criminal facilitation is not a lesser included offense of grand larceny.

It was the contention of the accused that since the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the crime of criminal facilitation, it cannot have the power to charge the accused of that crime. However, the Supreme Court or Queens County found that since the accused himself moved that he be charged with the lesser included offense of criminal facilitation, he has waived his right to question the charge.

Published on: February 28, 2013

Court Reverses Grand Larceny Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding, an intermediate order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment will have a review from the Supreme Court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said it appears from evidence presented that a bank, a trust company and another corporation executed a statement of trust receipt financing. At the grand jury trial, the three officers of the bank were called as witnesses. The bank paid the automobile company the total sum of $21,430.59 for eight automobiles. An employee of the bank checked the floor plan of the corporation and found out that four from eight of the cars were missing. Another check was made five days later and the remaining four cars were also missing from the floor. Consequently, a letter was delivered to the corporation by the bank in which they demand payment of all amounts due under trust receipts or immediate possession of all new and used cars on which the bank held trust receipts. A similar notice was served and in the interval checks had been received by the bank drawn by the corporate dealer in payment of the amounts due on two of the cars. The checks were not paid because of insufficient funds. The bank received neither the automobiles nor the moneys due.

It was upon the evidence that an indictment was returned accusing the president of the corporation, individually, of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. The president of the corporation, which was the trustee, secreted, withheld and appropriated to his own use, and that of a person other than the true owner of the automobiles.

Published on: February 27, 2013

Defendant Claims that Theft Charges Were Time Barred

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1991, the man assumed administrative duties at a nursing home. He became its principal operator in 1995. A New York Criminal Lawyer said at all relevant times, the nursing home was a participant in the Medicaid programs and was reimbursed through such programs for services provided to each state’s residents who were Medicaid recipients residing within its facility.

In 1993, the man, on behalf of the nursing home, submitted rate reports to the state setting forth the nursing home state rate. He thereafter certified that the nursing home was also going to provide physical, occupational and speech therapy services, as well as dental services, to the state’s Medicaid recipients but that the cost of such services was not included in the home state rate. Based upon the said reports, the state calculated the nursing home’s daily rate and then included add-on payments for the specified ancillary services.

In 1998, the state advised the nursing home that they going to review the services they provided to the state’s Medicaid recipients by out-of-state providers. They also requested the nursing home to make available for inspection all patient records dating back 1992. Following the said investigation, the man and the nursing home were each charged with two counts of grand larceny in the first degree and two counts of grand larceny in the second degree.

Published on: February 26, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was accused of the crimes of criminal mischief in the second degree, two counts of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and two counts of attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusation arise from the incident when the man directed his agents or employees to widen and reconstruct a town road and did thereby intentionally damage property of another person by destroying trees, stone walls, and wire fences, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he had such right, and did thereby steal and appropriate said road and property for his own benefit.

The man then made a motion and submitted an affidavit seeking various items of pre-trial relief. In the motion, the man asked the court to inspect the grand jury minutes. The court then granted the request to the extent that the court will examine the transcript of the proceedings.

Published on: February 25, 2013

Court Discusses Grand Larceny by Means of Extortion

by Stephen Bilkis

A man approached the sitting executive director of the New York State Republican Committee. He told the executive director that he will expose the criminal acts and official misconduct by a high-ranking elective Republican official. He also said that he will consider keeping quiet if he was given the amount of $25,000 yearly and a job with the state government for three years.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the executive director went to the police and reported the extortion attempt. The police then asked the executive director to set up a meeting with the man. When the meeting was set, the police hooked up a microphone for the executive director to wear. The executive director then asked the man to explain once more what he had proposed. The man’s extortion attempt was caught on audio tape recording. He was arrested and charged with attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

The man asked the trial court for leave to inspect the minutes of the Grand Jury minutes. He then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was not legally sufficient to establish the elements of the crime of grand larceny.