Grand Larceny

Published on: July 17, 2013

Appellate Court affirms judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

In the County Court of Suffolk County, a certain defendant stood convicted of the crimes of Attempted Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. When the defendant appeared for sentencing, a second felony information was filed against him charging that he had been convicted in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Utah on 15 November 1955, of the crime of Assault with Intent to Commit Rape. The defendant admitted said prior conviction but denied that the foreign crime if committed in the State he was in would be a felony.

As provided for under Section 76-7-7 of the Penal Code of the State of Utah, every person who assaults another with intent to commit rape, the infamous crime against nature, or mayhem is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one nor more than ten years. Rape, on the other hand, is defined under Section 76-53-15 of the Penal Code of the State of Utah. According to the code, rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female, not the wife of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: when the female is under the age of thirteen years; where she is incapable, through lunacy or any other unsoundness of mind, whether temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent; where she resists, but her resistance is overcome by force or violence; where she is prevented from resisting by threats of immediate and great bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution, or by any intoxicating, drug or anaesthetic substance administered by or with the privity of the accused; when she is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused; and where she submits under the belief that the person committing the act is her husband, and this belief is induced by artifice, pretense or concealment practiced by the accused with intent to induce such belief. It must be noted that the circumstances listed in the aforementioned foreign statute are comparable to the various theories of rape set forth in Section 2010 of the New York Penal Law. However, the circumstances under the last one are not included in any New York theory of rape.

Under the rules, in determining whether the defendant was previously convicted of a felony within the meaning of Section 1941 of the Penal Law, the Court is precluded from going behind the foreign statute and examining the acts which resulted in the defendant’s foreign conviction, as held in the landmark case of People v. Olah. Where a serious doubt exists such as the case at bar, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the felon. In view of this, the second felony information must be dismissed. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to be produced before the Court for imposition of sentence upon his New York State conviction.

Published on: July 16, 2013

Grand Jury proceedings are deemed defective

by Stephen Bilkis

It is alleged in this action that the criminal offenders entered into a bid-rigging method with the supervising buyer, whereby the distributor company would be awarded a number of contracts to sell hardware items even though they were not the lowest qualified bidder for those contracts. The supervising buyer allegedly wrongfully recommended the award of the contracts to the distributor company. When the distributor company obtained the contracts, the transportation company paid an amount in excess of fifteen hundred dollars over what they would have paid, had the true lowest qualified bidder received the award for the contracts.

A total of eleven contracts were awarded to the distributor company pursuant to the alleged agreement between the president of the distributor company and the supervising buyer. But, certain of the contracts still in effect when they were cancelled by the transportation company.

The charges were then filed and the offenders were arraigned. Consequently, the offenders were charged with the crimes of conspiracy in the fifth degree, grand larceny in the second degree and conspiracies to prevent competitive bidding on public contracts.

Published on: July 16, 2013

Arbitration is crucial in this case

by Stephen Bilkis

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, petitioner brings an application pursuant to CPLR 7502 (a) and 7503 (b), to permanently stay the arbitration proceeding commenced by Respondents, on the grounds that: (a) Petitioner and Respondents in their settlement agreement expressly agreed to litigate, not arbitrate, all disputes; (b) the claims sought to be arbitrated are beyond the scope of the arbitration clause contained in their Employment Agreement; and (c) any arbitration should be stayed pending the outcome of an ongoing Grand Jury investigation related to the same claims alleged by Respondents.

Benefit Plan Administrators (BPA) provides services as a third-party benefits administrator of health benefit plans. Petitioner is the former principal owner and chief executive officer (CEO) of BPA. On July 19, 1995, Respondents purchased BPA from Petitioner. To ensure an orderly transition, the parties agreed that petitioner was to continue managing BPA, as CEO, and executed an agreement (the 1995 Employment Agreement), pursuant to which petitioner would be paid a salary and incentive bonus based on the increase in the company’s future earnings. Under section 9 (b) of the 1995 Employment Agreement there was a provision for arbitration under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Grand Larceny might be charged.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, during 1996 and 1997, the parties executed four different amendments to the 1995 Employment Agreement. None of these amendments changed the arbitration provision. The fourth amendment, for instance, provided that BPA would secure a guarantee of incentive bonus payments to Isernio from its senior lender. Petitioner then filed a demand for arbitration against BPA under section 9 (b) of the 1995 Employment Agreement, based on BPA’s failure to use diligent efforts to guarantee payment of the incentive bonus as required by the fourth amendment to the 1995 Employment Agreement. In resolution of this dispute, on June 26, 1998, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which provided, among other things, that petitioner would discontinue the arbitration and would execute an amended and restated employment agreement, which was to amend the 1995 Employment Agreement, and contained a general merger clause.

Published on: July 14, 2013

Single count of larceny is charged

by Stephen Bilkis

On 13 February 2008, the criminal defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict. The defendant appealed. The appeal brought up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony.

On appeal, the judgment was modified, on the law, and the defendant’s conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree was reduced to petit larceny, and the sentence imposed thereon was vacated. However, since the defendant has already served the maximum permissible sentence for that crime, the matter was remitted to the trial court for sentencing to time served on the conviction for petit larceny.

First, the trial court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony. Indeed, the defendant sufficiently preserved his contentions for appellate review in this regard. However, the People established that the photo array was not improper, and the defendant failed to establish that the procedure was unduly suggestive. In particular, although there was conflicting evidence as to whether the first witness may have been present in the room when the second witness viewed the photo array, that evidence would not, by itself, taint the second witness’s identification testimony, absent evidence of communication between the two witnesses, which was not present. Moreover, the trail court also did not err in determining that the photos of the fillers used in the array sufficiently resembled the defendant’s photo, and that the array was not unduly suggestive. Further, there was no merit to the defendant’s contention that the fact that each witness was shown only a single array of six photos, by itself, rendered the photo array procedure improper.

Published on: July 13, 2013

3 to 6 years was the sentence

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman worked as office manager for a period of thirteen months. Over that period, she stole several checks to her employer, endorsing and depositing them in her own bank account. The stolen checks were totaled in excess of $3,000. She was consequently arrested and eventually pleaded guilty to the court charging her with grand larceny in the third degree.

Subsequently, the court sentenced the criminal woman to a term of five years probation, and later transferred the probation supervision to the city, where she then lived and worked. The woman admitted that she stopped reporting to her probation officer and also ceased making required compensation payments. Afterward, the woman was arrested again for petit larceny.

Later, the Supreme Court filed a declaration of delinquency against the woman alleging that she had violated the terms and conditions of her probationary sentence. Consequently, a bench warrant for her arrest was issued that same day.

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 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 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.