Articles Posted in Grand Larceny

In this criminal action, a demurrer was duly filed to an indictment charging this defendant with the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree, assault in the second degree (nine counts), and carrying a dangerous weapon as a felony. The demurrer states that the grand jury which found this indictment had no legal authority to inquire into the crimes charged.

A Queens County Grand larceny lawyer said that defendant was arrested and was sent to a Hospital for a psychiatric examination, found insane and committed to a State Hospital. Thereafter, he was indicted for the crimes of robbery, first degree; grand larceny, second degree; assault, second degree and carrying a dangerous weapon as a criminal felony.

He was declared recovered in February 1968 at the hospital and returned to this Court.

Continue reading

This is an action for a forfeiture claim. In essence, plaintiff alleges that the non criminal defendants are dentists who billed the state program for unauthorized dental services provided by the criminal defendant and companies he is alleged to have controlled.

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that the forfeiture action was commenced by order to show cause in May 2005, at which time the court granted plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order attaching the personal and real property of the criminal defendant and the non-criminal defendants, and restrained all defendants and all persons and entities having knowledge of the order from removing from the State, transferring, assigning, disposing of, encumbering or secreting such property. Defendants appeared by counsel and the court approved a stipulation modifying the temporary restraining order, and permitted the release of funds from certain accounts held by the non-criminal defendants, including the release of approximately $7,000.00, to be used for living, business and legal expenses.

Thereafter, the court approved a stipulation and order further modifying the temporary restraining order, and permitted the release of additional funds from certain accounts held by certain defendants, including $23,187.37 to be used for living, business and legal expenses. In July 2005 the Attorney General and non-criminal defendants individually and on behalf of his interests entered into a Stipulated Preliminary Injunction. These defendants also executed an Affidavit of Confession of Judgment in favor of the State of New York to secure plaintiff’s interest in real property owned by these defendants, and agreed to plaintiff’s filing of judgments in the counties where they possess real property and the filing of notices of pendency against several of the real properties.

Continue reading

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered August 23, 1984, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was a police officer whose primary duty was to respond to the scene of past burglaries to search for fingerprints left by the intruders. The People alleged that during the course of his duties, on two separate occasions, the defendant entered the residences of the complainants and stole property therein. The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial, which was totally circumstantial, was legally insufficient to prove his guilt because it did not exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.

A Queens Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, in the first of two incidents on which the indictment is premised, the victim returned home to her apartment to discover the door unlocked and her mother’s jewelry scattered around the bedroom. Although it appeared that some of the jewelry was missing, she did find that several hundred dollars in cash, which her mother kept in an envelope in her dresser drawer, was still intact. The victim waited for her father to return home and then left. He called the police and shortly thereafter the defendant and his partner Officer arrived, ostensibly to locate fingerprints. Although the defendant and the Officer testified that neither of them was ever alone in the bedroom, he testified that the criminal defendant was in the bedroom by himself for about 15 minutes while he and the Officer filled out a complaint report. The defendant thereafter informed him that he could not locate any prints and the officers left. The mother arrived home at about 6 p.m. and discovered that the cash in the dresser was gone.

Continue reading

A Bronx Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, defendants-appellants, members of the New York City Police Force, were indicted, together with another, for the crime of conspiracy in the second degree, (Penal Law 105.10) grand larceny in the first degree (extortion), bribe receiving, receiving reward for official misconduct and official misconduct. At the trial, the latter two counts on official misconduct were removed from jury consideration. The jury acquitted on the charges of grand larceny and bribe receiving, but convicted on the charge of conspiracy in the second degree.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, also defendant was convicted of first degree murder. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the People failed to establish that the killing took place during the commission of the crime of burglary in the third degree, and that the People failed to establish that the killing took place during the commission of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, and that the County Court erred in submitting to the jury the theory of murder during the commission of the crime of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree, and that verdict of jury could not stand if the People only established one of the felonies, either burglary in the third degree or grand larceny in the second degree, because both theories were submitted to the jury as the basis of a finding of felony murder, inasmuch as there was nothing in the record to indicate which felony was used by the jury as the basis of the finding of guilty of felony murder.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in convicting appellants of conspiracy in the second degree.

The defendant doctor was indicted for grand larceny in the second degree and conspiracy in the first degree. A man was also indicted and is a fugitive. The charges arose from an alleged scheme that defrauded the New York State medical aid system of over $500,000. The theory of the State’s case was that the defendant doctor helped cause the submission to the medical aid system of claims for payment that were based on false statements that sonograms had been taken and then read by the radiologists in connection with the diagnosis and treatment of thousands of medical aid system patients. In reliance on these false statements, the State paid the claims. The indictment asserted that the scheme to defraud was carried out by the defendant doctor and others who made multiple sonograms of the same person, attributed the names of real medical aid system patients to the sonograms of a person who was not a medical aid system patient, and used without permission physicians’ names as having referred patients for sonograms when no such referrals had been made.

On January 12, 1995, the State advised the Court that a key witness had changed his testimony and that the defendant’s participation in the criminal activities within the statute of limitations period could not be proven. The State requested that the case be dismissed and their motion was granted.

At the same proceeding, the prosecutor filed a motion asking that the records of the proceeding not be sealed. The basis of the prosecutor’s application was that the Civil Recovery Unit of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the medical aid system fraud wants to use the records obtained by the State during its investigation and prosecution of the case to recover, through a civil action pending against the defendant, the money that the State allege was stolen by the defendant. The Court ordered that all sealing be stayed on January 12th and then extended the order on March 17, 1995.

Continue reading

The complainant allege that a pharmacist, acting both individually and as an agent of a pharmacy, submitted a number of claims for prescription refills for various recipients, which refills had not been authorized by the prescribing physicians.

Later, witness appeared before the grand jury, which returned the instant indictment, at which appearance she was represented by an attorney, and testified under transactional immunity.

After a year, the court set a proposed trial date with the understanding that if pretrial discovery had not been completed by that time the trial date would be postponed.

Continue reading

In this criminal case, appellant, who was 15 years old at the time of the offense, was charged, along with three other youths, with acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute robbery in the second and third degrees, attempted robbery in the second degree, assault in the second and third degrees, grand larceny in the fourth degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, attempted assault in the third degree, and menacing in the third degree.

A Bronx County Grand Larceny lawyer said that the affidavit of the victim stated that, he was approached by one of the four boys and pulled over to where the other three stood, where one of them threatened him, and then reached into his pocket and took his money. When he asked for his money back, the boy pushed him, causing him to fall to the ground and twist his wrist. All four boys kicked and punched him in the stomach while he was on the ground. His wrist was swollen for three days and sore for seven days.

At a court appearance, appellant and one correspondent appeared before the court, each with his own lawyer and his mother. Appellant’s counsel told the court that his client was willing to admit to the top count, in exchange for the dismissal of a separate accusatory instrument against him on an unrelated charge, and the release of appellant to his mother instead of his being remanded. Appellant’s counsel noted that he had explained to him that he could face 18 months in a juvenile correctional facility.

Continue reading

Because of a presumably unintentional omission by our legislature it now appears possible for a person with a less than 5 years old class B misdemeanor conviction who is convicted by a jury of certain class A misdemeanors in the New York City Criminal Court to receive a maximum sentence of one year, while another person with a less than 5 year old armed violent felony conviction convicted by a jury of the same class A misdemeanor in the Supreme Court could only receive a maximum sentence of six months.

This strange result seems to be an unintended consequence of the recently enacted experimental package of laws designed to reduce the backlog of misdemeanor cases in the State’s largest cities, particularly New York, by eliminating jury trials for less serious misdemeanors committed by first offenders.

The so-called “Misdemeanor Reclassification Act” amended Penal Law, § 70.15 and Criminal Procedure Law, § 340.40 and added a new section 400.14 to the Criminal Procedure Law. Briefly stated, the package created two sentencing categories for Class A misdemeanors, with provision for enhanced punishment for those convicted of the less serious misdemeanors who are “second crime offenders” and for defendants pleading to misdemeanors entered in full satisfaction of all felony charges contained in a felony complaint, indictment or Superior Court information.

Continue reading

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, in a motion dated July 30, 1980, which was subsequently joined by defendants’ moves for various reliefs including dismissal of the indictment and suppression of various evidences. The only applications contained in this motion which survive defendants’ recent pleas of guilty are the motions to suppress eavesdropping evidence on the grounds: (1) that the eavesdropping order exceeded the limits of permissible state regulation under U.S.Code, tit. 18, § 2516, subd. (2), and, (2) that no amendment to the eavesdropping order was sought by the prosecution prior to using eavesdropping evidence to substantiate the charge of Grand Larceny, an offense not specified in the eavesdropping order.

Bronx Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, defendants contend that the eavesdropping order signed by the honorable judge on June 26, 1979, effective June 29, 1979 exceeded the limits of permissible State regulation under U.S.Code, tit. 18, § 2516, subd. (2) in that it authorized eavesdropping in connection with an investigation into criminal usury (PL Art. 190).

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in decreeing the eavesdropping order.

In this criminal action, a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 was filed to review a determination of the Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators which suspended petitioner’s license as a nursing home administrator.

As a result of a nursing home criminal investigation, petitioner, a nursing home administrator for 11 years, was indicted for grand larceny in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument in the first degree. Petitioner signed a plea agreement in this matter with the Bronx County District Attorney’s office.

According to the agreement, in return for cooperating in an investigation of loan sharking operations by organized crime in The Bronx, petitioner would receive, inter alia: a misdemeanor plea, a sentence of probation on condition that he make full restitution, and a recommendation that his license be continued and complete assistance with regards to any license revocation proceedings. Petitioner assisted in the loan sharking investigation by gathering information and testifying against him at a trial, petitioner was permitted to plead guilty to petit larceny, a class A violence misdemeanor, in full satisfaction of the four felony charges. He was sentenced to three years’ probation and restitution. Thereafter, respondent Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators charged him with having engaged in unethical conduct in that he had been convicted of crimes. Following a hearing, the hearing officer issued a decision recommending that the board reprimand petitioner, but not suspend or revoke his license. The board subsequently adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of the hearing officer; however, it suspended petitioner’s license for 16 months and 25 days. The instant review proceeding ensued.

Continue reading