Grand Larceny

Published on: October 4, 2012

Contractor Charged with Grand Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A job contractor entered into a contract with an elderly homeowner for minor repairs to his house. When the minor repairs were finished, the job contractor asked the man to sign a receipt. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the homeowner was functionally literate, that is he can only read and write his own name. He cannot read much else. The homeowner thought that the job contractor was asking him to sign a receipt to evidence that he had duly worked on and made minor repairs on his house for the amount of $700.

The truth of the matter was that the job contractor asked the functionally literate homeowner to sign a mortgage deed and a promissory note for the amount of $1795. The job contractor was going to induce the homeowner to apply for loan and to sign a deed of mortgage on his house as collateral to pay for the loan. The promissory note was proof that the homeowner intended to borrow money and to pay it.

The functionally literate homeowner pressed charges against the job contractor for forgery, and for grand larceny which was committed by defrauding another in an amount exceeding $100. The job contractor was found guilty of the crime of grand larceny.

Published on: September 30, 2012

Appellant Contends Summary Judgment was in Error

by Stephen Bilkis

In her complaint the appellant averred that she was maliciously prosecuted when the appellees, acting in concert, caused her arrest and induced the County Solicitor of Dade County to file information in which she was charged with grand larceny, a charge the appellees knew was false. The pleader detailed the procedure following the filing of the information, related the embarrassment she endured and the damage she suffered, and she repeated the charge that the prosecution was instigated through malice without probable cause. A Dade Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, it was stated in the complaint that appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, waived a jury and was found not guilty by the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, summary judgment in favor of the appellees, who were defendants in the circuit court, was entered by the judge when he concluded that no genuine issue of fact was presented and that the movants should prevail as a matter of law.

The issue in this case is whether the Circuit Court Judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees.

Published on: September 23, 2012

Court Decides Conspiracy Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, a shoplifter had been apprehended and brought to the office of Carl G., a 22-year old office manager of a food store, and after some discussion G agreed to ‘forget’ the whole incident upon payment to him of $500. A New York Criminal Lawyer said upon reflection, the shoplifter disavowed the scheme and reported it to the District Attorney, who arranged for payment of the money to G.

When the money was paid G was arrested for extortion. Although G had retained counsel he inquired of defendant S, a security officer in his store, if he knew anyone who could help him. The next day S informed G that defendant B, an ex-state senator, had great influence and could perhaps have the charge dropped but it might involve paying off some people. He arranged for G to meet B. At this meeting attended by all three, B and G had a discussion in which S did not participate.

G was advised to discharge his attorneys; B ‘guaranteed’ he could produce a satisfactory result because of his influence with certain public officials and agreed to make an inquiry to determine how much of a pay-off might be required. At that meeting G intended to go along with B suggestion to turn over money to resolve or drop the pending charges. Before the scheduled second meeting, G upon reflection concluded that B was a name dropper who couldn’t do anything for him and advised S he had reconsidered B proposition, decided to decline his help and withdrew from any arrangement. S did not attempt to induce G continued participation in the scheme. Thereafter G revealed all these events to his attorneys, who advised the District Attorney, and G agreed to co-operate with him in an investigation of the defendants. By pre-arrangement with the District Attorney, G office was equipped with a hidden microphone and S was called to his office. G asked him whether B would ‘take him back on’. S indicated that B had become very displeased B for backing out of the original deal because he had done 3 or 4 days of research on his case. He did however arrange for another meeting. The record shows no other meeting between G and S, only the one meeting at which all three were present, and no other meeting between S and B. G, on the other hand, conferred with B on two more occasions, during both of which he was equipped with a concealed transmitter tuned to a receiver in the District Attorney’s car. At the second meeting Bauer advised Gmerek that he had discussed the extortion charge with the District Attorney and certain other people (when in fact the record reveals he had never done so); that the charges could be favorably disposed of for $3,000 but he would try for $2,000, and he requested Gmerek to bring that sum in cash at their next meeting. Gmerek was furnished the money in marked bills by the District Attorney, and after it was given to Bauer the latter was arrested.

Published on: August 29, 2012

Defendants Contend Court Lacks Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Stemming from a grand larceny case where defendants were convicted, at an Extraordinary Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court, of conspiracy in the fourth degree, hindering prosecution in the third degree and official misconduct, the Appellate Division, on appeal, found that the evidence was legally insufficient, unanimously reversed, expressly stating it did so on the law and the facts, and dismissed the indictment.

The people now appeal from the said judgment.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Court Discusses Crime of Conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court dismissed the indictment against defendants for conspiracy in the fourth degree (two counts), hindering prosecution in the third degree (two counts) and official misconduct (two counts).

In the early 1960s, JF, a resident of Queens County and meter reader for a company, entered upon a scheme under which he accepted money from various investors, agreeing to pay them a return of 1% A week and explaining to them that this high return was being paid by a factoring company which loaned out moneys to various companies in the fur, textile and other industries where there was a need for immediate cash. In fact, there was no factoring company and JF was merely repaying these people from their own moneys. Among the hundreds of persons who invested with him were members of the staff of the District Attorney of Queens County, including defendants.

In March of 1971, after being the victim of a real or apparent robbery, and being ostensibly unable to continue to pay off investors, JF fled New York City and went to San Francisco. His whereabouts were unknown to the authorities until a year later, when he was discovered by two irate investors and was returned to New York City by them. Within two weeks, he was indicted for 35 counts of grand larceny by a Queens County Grand Jury upon presentation of the case by the District Attorney’s office. At that time, defendant was the District Attorney of Queens County, his son-in-law, was the Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney and another defendant was a County Detective in the District Attorney’s office.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Court Reviews Judiciary Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. The matter at hand deals with the attorney and respondent of the case, Eric Alan Klein. The petitioner in the case is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.

The respondent was admitted to the bar on the 7th of March, 1984. This occurred during a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. The respondent was admitted to the bar under the name of Eric Alan Klein.

Case Background

Published on: July 24, 2012

Defendant Files Motion to Dismiss Due to Transactional Immunity

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1980, the district attorney summons a grand jury to investigate allegations concerning a gas company. In connection with that investigation, the district attorney issued a subpoena directing the company’s president, to present to the grand jury numerous books and records of the company.

In addition,a New York Criminal Lawyer said the grand jury issued a subpoena directing the president to appear and give testimony. Consequently, the president appeared and testified to the company’s sales volume, his knowledge of that volume, his involvement in the company’s operation and his knowledge of about the financial situation.

The attorney-general secured charges against the president charging him with one count of grand larceny in the second degree (sales tax evasion) and sixteen counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (false sales tax returns).

Published on: July 24, 2012

Court Discusses Elements of Asssault

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant acted with intent to prevent an emergency medical technician (EMT) from performing a lawful duty when he caused an EMT to suffer physical injury.

On the day before Christmas 2006 at about 2:20 A.M., two emergency medical technicians were dispatched by ambulance in response to a call for medical assistance for a woman who injured her hand and a man who suffered a bleeding face in a fight. Upon arriving in the location, the EMTs observed about 15 people in the apartment, as well as beer cans and coolers, causing the victim EMT to conclude that there had been “a party of some sorts.” The injured woman complained of pain in her right hand, on which she had placed an ice pack; she told the EMTs that “she had been in a verbal altercation with somebody, and punched a wall with her right hand.” The EMTs did not see and were not directed to or approached by anyone bleeding from the face. After treating the woman, the EMTs left the apartment and head back to the ambulance.

As one of the EMTs was about to climbed into the ambulance, defendant came to him and threw a beer can to the EMT’s head (assault). Defendant hit him in the back of the head, grabbed his sweater collar and threw him to the ground, where he landed face up. Defendant kneeled down on one knee and struck the EMT on his face two or three times with a closed hand. Defendant was charged criminally from the assault. Defendant argued that he could not be convicted with the crime charged since the EMTs were not performing a lawful duty since the EMTs had finished their duty upon which they were called.

Published on: July 21, 2012

Court Discusses Whistleblower Law

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was employed from a not for profit agency. She worked as a coordinator of the employment services. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when she was still a probationary, she was terminated for alleged unsatisfactory job performance. Eleven months later, she initiated an action claiming that she was terminated because of her objection to and refusal to participate in the agency’s alleged fraudulent billing to the city for placements it never made. The agency finds employment for job applicants or places them in educational or training programs, for which it receives funding from the city.

The agency moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to satisfy the two elements which are conditions precedent to the maintenance of an action under a whistleblower law. Based on records, the whistleblower law applies to relatively few situations and several proponents accepted to its narrow scope and urged broader application.

Consequently, the woman asserted that the agency’s billing practices constituted a grand larceny. The court then denied the motion and finding that the complaint states a valid reason for action under the labor law. Based on records, the part of the labor law provides that an employer shall not take any disciplinary personnel action against an employee because such employee does discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant on Trial for Larceny by Embezzlement

by Stephen Bilkis

An Armored Courier Corp. warehouse in Bronx County was burglarized and robbed of some $11 million by individuals unconnected to the company, who were later apprehended and prosecuted. In the aftermath of the robbery, the Bronx County District Attorney’s office focused its attention on the company’s-own business practices. A series of indictments charging the company and its principals with various counts of grand larceny and misapplication of property ensued. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he question presented for consideration is whether the indictments’ allegations concerning the companies handling of the money entrusted to their care would, if proven, support convictions for the crimes charged.

The six indictments collectively charge the company officials, the Armored Courier Corp. and the Investigations Corp. with several counts of grand larceny in the second degree and misapplication of property. At the time the indictments were issued, the company was principally engaged in transporting and storing large sums of cash and performing related services on behalf of its clients. The company officials include the president of the Armored Courier Corp., the senior vice-president of that corporation, and the vice-president and cashier of the Valley National Bank, which played a role in one of the alleged misappropriation schemes.

The case has a complex factual and procedural history. The grand larceny and misapplication charges arose out of four separate courses of conduct, which the State of New York claim demonstrate the accused parties’ criminal mishandling of their clients’ funds. The first Grand Jury to consider the State’s evidence handed up five indictments. Of the five, three were dismissed entirely with leave to re-present. The other two indictments were sustained against the company president and senior vice-president but dismissed against the only named corporate opponent, the Armored Courier Corp. The second Grand Jury handed up four new indictments, naming the company president, the senior vice-president, the Armored Courier Corp. and the Investigations Corp. as opponents. All six outstanding indictments were dismissed by the Presiding Judge on the ground that the proof before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. Two of the indictments, which named the company president and senior vice-president as opponents, were reinstated on the State’s appeal to the Appellate Division, and the State, as well as the company president and senior vice-president were granted leave to take cross appeals to the court.