Articles Posted in Grand Larceny

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, this is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered January 12, 1996 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (seven counts).

A New York Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, defendant, a licensed podiatrist and a participating provider in the State Medical Assistance Program (hereinafter Medicaid), was indicted on one count of grand larceny in the second degree (see, Penal Law former § 155.35) and 10 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35). The first count implicated defendant’s knowing submission of false claims to Medicaid from December 1985 through August 1986 for custom-made orthotics, which services he had not rendered, resulting in payment to defendant of approximately $20,608. Counts 2 through 11 stem from defendant’s submissions of claims to Medicaid pursuant to procedure code 90473 of the Medicaid Provider Manual from January 1986 through December 1986, knowing that such services had not been provided. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of all charges except those alleged in counts 4, 6 and 11, and was sentenced to a prison term of 2 1/3 to 7 years on the grand larceny conviction and 1 to 3 years each on the seven counts of offering a false instruments for filing, each of which was to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the grand larceny sentence. Defendant was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $20,608. This appeal ensued.

A New York Robbery Lawyer said that, defendant challenges his conviction on several grounds: the erroneous introduction of evidence of uncharged crimes, the vagueness of Medicaid procedure code 90473 and the erroneous imposition of consecutive sentences. Defendant also urges that the sentences imposed are harsh and excessive.

Continue reading

The criminal defendants and complainants own a four- floor residential real property located at 1458 51st Street in Kings County. The defendants own a two-thirds share of the property and the complainants own a one-third share. The separate deeds that conveyed the property, however, do not specify ownership in any particular portion of the house; rather the deeds refer only to the percentage share each owns in the entirety of the property.

The defendants were charged with grand larceny in the second degree for allegedly stealing the complainants’ one-third share of the property by forging a deed resulting in the improper transfer of the complainants’ interest in the property to the defendants.

The issue presented to this court is whether the defendants may be lawfully charged with grand larceny. For the reasons that follow this court finds that they may not and the indictment must be dismissed—the law is well settled that a joint or common owner of property cannot steal from another joint or common owner of that property as the victim of the “theft” does not have a superior right of possession, a required element of larceny.

Continue reading

A claim was filed by claimant against the State of New York to recover the sum of $25,000 damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of his false arrest and detention by officers of the Division of State Police of the State of New York. The claimant substantially alleges that in November 1952, the State Police “without any warrant or authority of law, wrongfully, maliciously and unlawfully arrested claimant, and compelled claimant, wrongfully and unlawfully, to go from his home to the Police Station of said Division of State Police in New York City”, where he was detained and held in custody of the State Police, and, thereafter, the claimant was discharged.

A Bronx County criminal attorney said that counsel for the claimant and counsel for the State of New York agreed that this claim be submitted to the court upon a stipulation and statement of facts which were read into the record.

From the facts stipulated, it appears that on the date of the incident, a teletype message was received at the New York State Police barracks in New York City, which message described the claimant wanted on bench warrant for grand larceny and is alleged to be at or known to family.

The complainant was formerly employed as a sales associate in the computer department of the offender’s store. At some point, the complainant entered a transaction into the cash register for the sale of a computer, charging it to a credit card. The complainant’s employee number appears on the store’s computer detail display of the receipt and he readily admits that he is the person who conducted the sale. The complainant claims that he received a telephone order from a woman. The computer receipt includes a notation that includes the customer’s name. But, the complainant denies having made the notation. Later, the aforementioned customer complained to the store that she had not purchased the computer and had not authorized anyone else to purchase a computer using her credit card.

Around the same time, the loss prevention manager of the store was investigating the conduct of another store’s employee, with regards to the merchandise returned without original receipts and the unauthorized use of a credit card belonging to another customer. After the manager reviewed the relevant documentation with his supervisors, the store determined to have the matter reviewed by the police.

The manager met with a detective and provided him with documentation concerning the matter. During the meeting, the detective inquired about an employee number on one of the receipts, and when advised that it was the complainant’s, the detective said he would need to speak to the person and requested further information concerning the transaction, including a statement from the customer. According to the detective, the manager also told him that the complainant and another employee were working together, and that the manager had seen the complainant pick up the computer. But, the manager denies making the two statements. The detective then turned over the documentation provided by the manager to his colleague.

The defendant, an attorney, was indicted in a nine count consolidated instrument. He was the executor-attorney of the estate of his deceased law partner. Seven of the counts concerned larceny of estate property and one concerned perjury in an examination before trial in a Surrogate’s Court Proceeding to revoke letters testamentary. The remaining count, Forgery in the Second Degree, concerned a corporate client.

Following a substitution of counsel on the eve of the trial, the defendant moved to inspect the grand jury minutes and for a dismissal thereof on the grounds of insufficiency. Based on records, the court granted the motion for inspection and following such inspection denied the motion to dismiss. Robbery was not a matter. These are considered white collar crimes of a criminal nature.

Following another substitution of counsel, the defendant attorney moved for a further inspection of the grand jury minutes and for a dismissal of the indictment, claiming that the district attorney failed to provide legal instructions in the form of a charge to the grand jury recorded in minutes, thus rendering their proceedings fatally defective and upon the further basis that the grand jury was unconstitutionally empanelled by reason of the systematic exclusion of women.

Continue reading

A woman filed an appeal from the decision convicting her of the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree and in the fourth degree, forgery in the second degree and identity theft in the third degree. The woman’s husband also appealed from the decision convicting him of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree.

After the woman spent more than $150,000 from bank accounts held jointly with her elderly grandmother, she and her husband were charged with grand larceny in the second degree. The woman was also charged with grand larceny in the fourth degree and forgery in the second degree as a result of her endorsement of a check payable to her deceased father, and identity theft in the third degree based upon her application for and use of a credit card under the name of her grandmother.

At the trial, the evidence revealed that the funds in the joint bank accounts had come solely from the woman’s grandmother, and that grandmother voluntarily placed the funds in joint names to enable the woman to pay her grandmother’s bills and expenses. The woman then wrote many checks on the accounts payable to herself. She also used $75,000 of the funds to purchase a home for her grandmother to live in. But, the woman put the name of the house under her name and eventually sold it, keeping the proceeds. Neither the woman nor her husband testified at trial, but their attorney argued that use of the funds could not constitute larceny because the woman was a joint owner of the accounts. Consequently, the court rejected the argument, charging the jury as to criminal larceny.

Continue reading

In a criminal case, defendant was convicted of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree, 17 counts of grand larceny in the third degree and one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree. County Court sentenced him to concurrent indeterminate terms of incarceration of 5 to 15 years for each count of grand larceny in the second degree, 2 to 6 years on each count of grand larceny in the third degree and a definite term of one year for grand larceny in the fourth degree.

The Court concludes that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Defendant had no criminal history prior to these nonviolent offenses and has expressed remorse for his actions and their consequences. He voluntarily turned himself into authorities, confessed to the crimes and entered a guilty plea. Most of his victims contacted the court requesting that defendant not be sentenced to a term of incarceration. There were numerous letters submitted to the court by friends and family attesting to defendant’s good character and prospects for rehabilitation.

The Court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence to 2 to 6 years of incarceration on each count of grand larceny in the second degree, and 1 to 3 years of incarceration on each count of grand larceny in the third degree, for an aggregate sentence of 2 to 6 years.

Continue reading

On November 11, 1977, the 42-year old female defendant in this case asked the complainant for ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in exchange for dropping a complaint for rape filed against complainant’s husband. This criminal incident allegedly took place in the courthouse, in a hall outside of a courtroom. Because of this, defendant was charged with attempted grand larceny in the third degree, by extortion, an “A” felony. The defendant moved that the charges be dismissed on the theory that the People had failed to shoulder their evidentiary burden of demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the criminal offense charged.

Under the law, grand larceny is committed when a person steals property and when the property, regardless of its nature and value, is obtained by extortion. Larceny by extortion is further defined by law as follows: “A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another” will do any of the nine (9) specific instances delineating the nature of the threat or type of intimidation by which the larceny is intended to be performed.

One of these instances includes the following act: “to testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense.” This is the kind of threat that possibly or remotely applies to the facts of this case because of the allegations that defendant asked for money in exchange for withholding her claim against the complainant’s husband.

Continue reading

The defendants have been indicted for the crimes of forgery and grand larceny. The gist of the charge against the defendants is that they fraudulently obtained rent monies from various tenants of a real estate firm.

According to the a New York Criminal Attorney, the alleged thefts were effectuated by means of the utterance of false instruments purporting to emanate from the firm, instructing tenants to send their rent payments to a fictitious auditing firm, which in reality was a front for the defendants.

The first count of the indictment, charging the defendants with forgery in the second degree, accuses them of forging a written instrument with intent to defraud others. The second count, also charging the defendants with forgery in the second degree, alleges they uttered this instrument with knowledge that it had been forged. The remainder of this fourteen count indictment accuses each defendant of twelve, separate crimes of grand larceny in the second degree.

Continue reading

Petitioners seek to prohibit the District Attorney of Kings County and certain Justices of the Supreme Court from prosecuting them under two indictments pending in said county. The Appellate Division has dismissed the proceeding.

A Kings County Criminal attorney said that under Queens County indictment, petitioners were indicted for various counts of grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property, robbery, in the first degree and unauthorized use of vehicles, as well as for one count of possession of burglar’s tools for burglary and one of conspiracy in the third degree, all alleged to have been committed. They were also indicted under Kings County indictments which contained a number of counts for said crimes of grand larceny, criminal possession and unauthorized use perpetrated during the same period. The Kings County counts do not coincide in all respects with those in the Queens indictment. Petit Larceny was not charged.

The petition recites: ‘we were subsequently arrested and arraigned in Kings County Criminal Court the arrests again being made and the cases based on the same facts and circumstances as the Queens cases.’ The brief of the People states: ‘Respondent has always conceded that the automobiles and complainants involved in the Kings County charges are the same as those involved in the Queens County Indictment’ and ‘the District Attorney of Kings County has continually stipulated as to the similarity of the instant indictment, thus never initiating a factual disparity between the separate charges.’

Continue reading