Articles Posted in Grand Larceny

In November 2004, the defendant was arrested for stealing a 2004 Lexus automobile, valued at more than $50,000, and was subsequently charged with grand larceny in the second degree, a class C felony, and eleven other offenses. Thereafter, the defendant plead guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, a class D felony, in satisfaction of the indictment, and in exchange for a promised “split sentence” of five months in jail1 and five years probation. As part of the plea agreement, the defendant also waived his right to appeal. Later, the court rendered judgment and sentenced the defendant as promised.

A Kings County Criminal Attorney said that the court issued a “Declaration of Delinquency” against the defendant, based on the “Specifications of Alleged Violation of Probation” (“VOP”), filed by the Department of Probation. Thereafter, the defendant appeared before this court in Part 32, and plead guilty to the VOP, under “Specification #1” thereof, in exchange for a sentence [re-sentence] of one-to-three years in prison, the minimum prison term authorized for criminal possession of stolen property in the 3rd degree. The Supreme Court revoked the defendant’s sentence of probation, and re-sentenced him accordingly.

In papers, the defendant, who is represented by retained counsel on the instant motion, now states that he wishes to withdraw his guilty pleas, both to the VOP and to the underlying crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and he moves this court to vacate both convictions. Thereafter, the People filed papers opposing the defendant’s motion.

Continue reading

In this criminal case, defendants have been indicted on charges growing out of an alleged scheme to steal from charities serving Brooklyn and from the City of New York. The charges include conspiracy, grand larceny by false pretenses, grand larceny by misappropriation, offering a false instrument for filing, falsifying business records, and issuing a false financial statement.

A King County Grand larceny attorney said that the alleged victims of the larcenies and false documents were several offices and government agencies in New York. At the time of the alleged crimes, the first defendant was the executive director of one of the alleged victim corporation, and the second defendant was the executive director of another alleged victim corporation.

After the defendants moved for discovery, a bill of particulars, and a dismissal of the indictment, the Court on its own motion ordered additional particulars to assist it in ruling on the motions to dismiss and to clarify and simplify the issues if the case goes to trial.

In January 1992, the 13-year-old appellant was arrested. He was charged with acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. He was remanded to a secure facility, based upon a history of absconding from Children’s Village, a non-secure setting, several times in the prior several months, and upon his posing a serious risk of not appearing in court on the return date. At a fact-finding hearing, he admitted to having committed acts constituting two counts of criminal mischief in the fourth degree. On that date, his Law Guardian requested that the dispositional hearing be adjourned from Westchester to Brooklyn, as that was the appellant’s last county of residence. That application was joined in by the Westchester County Attorney, and the matter was transferred to Kings County for a dispositional hearing. The fact-finding order was entered thereafter.

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that the appellant appeared in the Family Court, Kings County, seven days later, and was assigned a new Law Guardian. On that date, the presentment agency asked for continued remand for purposes of conducting a probation investigation and preparing a report, a mental health study, and an exploration of placement, and in order to ascertain the whereabouts of his parents or guardian and his status at Children’s Village. Over the Law Guardian’s objection, the court adjourned the matter for those purposes, and continued the remand because no parent or guardian was present in court, as well as because there was substantial probability that the appellant would not appear on the return date. The matter was adjourned for disposition. Family Court Act § 350.1(1) provides that in cases such as this, the dispositional hearing shall commence 10 days after entry of the fact-finding order. That statutory 10-day period expired on February 7, 1992.

On February 6, the Law Guardian moved to dismiss the petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 350.1. That motion was denied on February 10. At that time, the court noted that it had received a probation and mental health report, but that the probation department required an adjournment in order to complete the exploration of placement alternatives. The court granted the adjournment, finding special circumstances, and adjourned the case to February 19, 1992.

The defendant is a New York State Assemblyman and the chairman of the Executive Committee of the County Democratic Party (CDC). According to the evidence before the grand jury, as an Assemblyman he routinely traveled from Brooklyn to Albany and back on New York State Assembly business. At the same time, as chairman of the CDC, he was provided with a car and a credit card by which the CDC paid all of his car-related expenses, including gas, oil and routine maintenance. During the period of time covered by the above-captioned indictment, the defendant submitted vouchers by which he sought and received a mileage allowance for the miles he had driven to and from Albany. It is the theory of the prosecution that by receiving the mileage allowances sought in the vouchers, the criminal defendant stole money from the State of New York by falsely claiming to have incurred the expenses which the allowances were meant to reimburse, and that when he certified on the vouchers that he incurred those expenses and was due a balance that included the mileage allowances, the certification on each voucher constituted a false statement.

Based on evidence, the defendant was indicted by the grand jury and charged with one count of grand larceny in the third degree and 76 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. The grand larceny count alleges that pursuant to a common scheme and plan, the defendant stole more than $3,000 from the State of New York by seeking and obtaining reimbursement for travel expenses that the defendant claimed to have incurred in New York and other counties by means of false pretenses in written instruments that the defendant offered for filing. The 76 false filing counts concern those written instruments, 76 travel vouchers (formally called NYS Assembly Member Per Diem Expenses Reimbursement Vouchers), which the counts allege the defendant offered for filing with the intent to defraud the State, knowing that each contained a false statement and false information concerning travel expenses that the defendant purported to incur in New York and other counties.

In an omnibus motion, the defendant seeks inspection of the grand jury minutes and dismissal or reduction of the charges in the indictment, claiming that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient and that the grand jury proceedings were defective. The defendant also claims that the indictment itself is defective and that there are jurisdictional and legal impediments to his conviction for the crimes charged. The defendant also moves to dismiss the indictment in the interests of justice. Finally, the defendant moves for an order directing the State to provide him with a bill of particulars and for discovery and inspection. Upon consideration of the papers submitted by both the defendant and the State, and after hearing oral argument from both parties, the court issues that the defendant’s motion for the court to inspect the grand jury minutes is granted; the court has inspected and reviewed the grand jury minutes. The defendant’s motion for disclosure of the grand jury minutes to him has previously been granted to the extent that, with minor redactions, the testimony of two witnesses has been provided to him. The motion to disclose the remainder of the grand jury minutes is denied since that disclosure is unnecessary for the resolution of the defendant’s motions.

Continue reading

A man was convicted of the crimes of criminal forgery in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree. He was sentenced to prison for concurrent terms of two and one-half to five years for each conviction. He then filed a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The instant application, made within one day before the expiration of the one-year legal period of limitation after the imposition of the decision, is founded upon documentary proof consisting of official records of the army. The records establish that the date of the crimes for which he stands convicted and sentenced, the man was under detention in the post stockade. The records state that the man was in confinement for awaiting trial and under sentence of a court-martial and was released from confinement and discharged from service, under conditions other than honorable.

The army documents were submitted in evidence at the man’s hearing in support of his application for a new trial. It appears from the court records that the man was indicted for forgery in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree, arising from his alleged endorsement and uttering a state war bond valued at $150 and made to the order of another person. But, the man was not in the custody of the county’s authorities at the time of his indictment and he did not plead to the accusation. He also furnished bail in the sum of $1,000 and was released from confinement.

Continue reading

This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered December 2, 1988, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree. A New York Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, in April 1988, defendant was indicted for grand larceny in the third degree. It was alleged in the indictment that during the period between January 28, 1987 and December 23, 1987, defendant stole property in excess of $3,000 from her employer, a Roofing Company. At trial, the People introduced into evidence various originals and microfilmed copies of 46 of the company’s checks which defendant had allegedly written to herself without authorization. A New York Robbery Lawyer said that, defendant, testifying on her own behalf, acknowledged that four of the checks had been written, signed and endorsed by her, but stated that they represented overtime pay authorized by her supervisor. Defendant denied either signing or endorsing the remaining 42 checks.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, at the close of proof, defendant requested that County Court charge the lesser included offense of petit larceny, which request was granted. Over defendant’s objection, the court also charged the lesser included offense of grand larceny in the fourth degree, of which defendant was ultimately convicted. County Court then sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 4 years and ordered restitution in the amount of $3,000. This appeal followed.

The issue in this case is whether defendant is entitled to a lesser offense of petit larceny.

An appeal was filed from a judgment convicting a man of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree. The man contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and it is against the weight of the evidence.

Based on records, the man’s argument concerning the legal insufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for the court’s review. Nevertheless, the court exercises their power to address the said argument as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction.

Subsequently, the man was charged in count one of the indictment with stealing of money from a trust, and he was charged in criminal count two with stealing of money directly from an elderly woman who was the beneficiary of the trust.

Continue reading

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 9, 1988, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree (five counts), grand larceny in the third degree (six counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. A New York Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, the defendant’s convictions of grand larceny and scheme to defraud arose out of the Attorney-General’s investigation of his automobile lease brokerage business which specialized in negotiating credit for individuals with bad credit histories and arranging for them to lease or purchase new and used automobiles. At the trial, 11 consumers, who responded to the defendant’s newspaper advertisements, testified that during 1986 they made substantial payments to the defendant and, despite the defendant’s repeated assurances, they neither received a car nor had their money refunded.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, on appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence a bank letter addressed to the court-appointed receiver of the defendant’s business which indicated the balance of the defendant’s business account.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence a bank letter addressed to the court-appointed receiver of the defendant’s business which indicated the balance of the defendant’s business account.

Continue reading

A New York Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, transit Police Officer testified that he observed the defendant while riding on the subway, unzip the handbag of the complainant, place his hand inside her handbag, and begin to lift a red change purse. At that time, the complainant, grabbed her pocketbook, and pulled away from the defendant. The defendant moved to another car on the train and the complainant told the transit police that someone had tried to steal her purse. Minutes later the defendant was arrested.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defense contends that, viewing the evidence even in the light most favorable to the People, the charge submitted to the jury should be one of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree rather than grand larceny in the fourth degree.

The issue in this case is whether a defendant who places his hand in a woman’s handbag and starts to lift up a change purse be charged with grand larceny in the fourth degree when he never actually removes the change purse from the handbag? Or is the crime no more than an attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree?

A man was charged in a felony complaint with grand larceny in the fourth degree and related charges stemming from an incident occurred. The complaint was filed in the criminal court and the man was subsequently arraigned. He was then released on his own recognizance at arraignment and the man’s case was postponed to an all purpose part. Subsequently, the case was again postponed for grand jury action and the complainant was not ready to proceed. The court then marked the case for final reduction of charges for grand jury action or for a hearing, and adjourned the case. Consequently, no grand jury action had occurred for the reason that the complainant was not prepared to reduce the charges or proceed to a hearing. Sources revealed that there is no good explanation was offered to excuse the lack of progress on the man’s case. As a result, the court dismissed the complaint against the man.

Based on records, a felony complaint is a limited purpose or transitional accusatory tool which serves as the basis for initiating a criminal action but not as a basis for prosecution of the charges. In addition, a local criminal court may dismiss a facially insufficient complaint at arraignment, may arraign an offender and issue a securing order on a complaint, may reduce a complaint, conduct a hearing and take appropriate action upon the completion of a proceeding and may issue an order to determine the offender’s fitness to proceed.

In the context, the offender’s right for a quick hearing becomes a critical component in the criminal prosecution because it is the only way available to an offender to test the quality of the case.

Continue reading