Articles Posted in Grand Larceny

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, this is a proceeding by petitioner pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to prohibit the respondents, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, and the District Attorney of said county, from further proceeding against him under indictment No. 603-85, and to dismiss said indictment outright.

A Queens Robbery Lawyer said that, petitioner, at his arraignment, served written notice upon the District Attorney of his desire to testify before the Grand Jury. The matter was ultimately presented to the Grand Jury and an indictment was voted on February 14, 1985, charging the petitioner with grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree. Petitioner received no notice regarding the convening of said Grand Jury. Accordingly, he moved, within five days after his arraignment, to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he had been denied his right to appear and testify before the Grand Jury under subdivision 5 of section 190.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

A Queens Felony Lawyer said that, Criminal Term granted the application on condition, however, that petitioner appear before another Grand Jury and directed that in the event of his failure to appear, the indictment was to “remain in full force and effect”. Petitioner thereafter commenced the instant article 78 proceeding. On June 10, 1985, the date on which the District Attorney was to have resubmitted the matter to another Grand Jury, petitioner notified the District Attorney’s office that he had decided against testifying. As a result, the District Attorney did not re-present the charges and by the terms of the Justice’s order, indictment No. 603-85 remains in full force and effect.

Continue reading

The county police found evidence involving a man in a number of burglaries. As a result, the said man was indicted for the crime of burglary in the third degree and two counts of grand larceny in the third degree. The man also faced a charge of petit larceny.

After an unsuccessful attempt of the man to controvert the search warrant, he pleaded guilty to two counts of petit larceny, in full satisfaction of all the criminal charges in the indictment. He also pleaded guilty to the petit larceny charge.

Subsequently, the single issue presented for the court’s consideration is whether there was probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant.

Continue reading

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, on April 24, 1972, the Suffolk County police, executing a search warrant at the premises of defendant, found evidence implicating him in a number of burglaries. As a result, defendant was indicted for the crime of burglary in the third degree and for two counts of grand larceny in the third-degree. He also faced a charge of petit larceny lodged against him in the District Court of Suffolk County. After an unsuccessful attempt to controvert the search warrant, the defendant pleaded guilty in the County Court to two counts of petit larceny, in full satisfaction of all the charges in the indictment. He also pleaded guilty to the petit larceny charge filed in the District Court. The Appellate Term affirmed the judgments of conviction.

The issue in this case is whether there was probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant.

The police officer who applied for the warrant based his application entirely upon the sworn statement of one witness. The witness affidavit was annexed to the warrant application and was directly before the Magistrate who issued the warrant. The first paragraph of the affidavit consisted entirely of statements shedding light on witness personal background. The witness averred that he was 18 years old, single, unemployed, and that he resided with his parents at an address in Green lawn, New York. He also set forth his home telephone number. The remainder of the affidavit recited personal observations he had made and a report of statements he heard while at Hicks’ Huntington Beach residence two weeks earlier. While there, the witness, and defendant’s brother, went into the bedroom to drink beer and listen to stereo music. There was a safe in the bedroom. The brother told the witness that he and three others had ‘ripped off a house’ and had stolen the safe. He opened the safe, and a third individual, removed a shoebox ‘half full of grass (marijuana).’ The witness observed that there were also some fireworks inside the safe. The brother apparently quite proud of his criminal activity, told the witness that the stereo equipment in the bedroom had been stolen from a house. To top off the litany of crime, defendant for his that he also stole a new engine and two high-back bucket seats for his car. Based on this information, duly sworn to by Leone, a search warrant was issued.

Continue reading

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, by letter dated August 3, 2007, the respondent informed the Court of his conviction of serious offenses automatically resulting in the revocation of his license to practice law in New York State. Effective July 27, 2007, he ceased the practice of law. The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter Grievance Committee) has now filed a motion to strike his name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), upon the ground that he has been disbarred upon his conviction of grand larceny in the second degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 155.40, a class C felony, and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 170.25, a class D felony.

A Suffolk Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, on December 22, 2006, the respondent entered a plea of guilty in the County Court, Suffolk County, to one count of grand larceny in the second degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 155.40, a class C felony, and one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 170.25, a class D felony, in lieu of 50 counts, before the Honorable Judge.

A Suffolk Felony Lawyer said that, during the plea allocution, the respondent admitted that, in or about May 2002, he obtained ownership of a house and real property located at 96 Jefferson Avenue, Wyandanch, in Suffolk County, without the permission or authority of its true owner and by false pretenses. The respondent specifically admitted that he obtained ownership of that property by filing false deeds and other instruments with certain public offices, including the Suffolk County Clerk’s office. He filed those documents knowing that they were forged. The respondent was sentenced on July 27, 2007, to a term of probation of five years, restitution in the sum of $534,462, and a mandatory DNA fee in the sum of $50.

This is a Criminal case where the Court rendered a decision revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the County Court, Suffolk County, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of grand larceny in the third degree.

A Suffolk County Grand larceny attorney said that in January 2001, the defendant was sentenced in the County Court, Suffolk County, upon his plea of guilty to grand larceny in the third degree, to a term of six months imprisonment and five years probation. The sentencing court acknowledged that the defendant was in custody and would receive credit for time served and, on appeal, the People acknowledge that the defendant was taken into custody on August 31, 2000.

Thereafter, in 2005, a declaration of delinquency was filed in the Supreme Court, Kings County, alleging that the defendant had violated a condition of his probation. During the violation of probation hearing, the defendant claimed that since he had served time in prison before pleading guilty and the term of probation ran concurrently with the term of imprisonment, the probationary period began to run in August 2000, the date he was taken into custody, and expired prior to the filing of the declaration of delinquency. The Department of Probation argued that the term of probation began to run from the date the sentence was imposed.

Continue reading

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, after a jury trial, appellants were convicted of grand larceny in the first degree (two counts), conspiracy to commit grand larceny, forgery in the third degree, and conspiracy to commit forgery; and appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand larceny, forgery in the third degree, and conspiracy to commit forgery. In addition, the jury also found the Forest Hills General Hospital guilty, but acquitted three other codefendants.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the theory of the prosecutor’s case was that appellants, three of whom were officers and stockholders of the Forest Hills General Hospital and one of whom was its accountant, conspired to defraud and did defraud the Associated Hospital Service of New York (hereinafter referred to as ‘Blue Cross’) by misrepresenting the actual operating costs of the hospital. This scheme was accomplished by disguising dividend payments to the hospital’s stockholders as salaries for services performed, through false entries in the hospital’s books and records and by means of false financial statements filed with Blue Cross.

The issue in this case is whether appellants’ guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by defendant: (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 3, 1963, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and of conspiracy as a misdemeanor, and suspending sentence; and (2) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 24, 1964, which denied his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. No appeal lies from the order denying the motion for a new trial. Nevertheless, such order has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment. In our opinion such order was properly made.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant is a lawyer who was convicted of obtaining a $450 settlement in his client’s personal injury action by submitting to an insurance company a fictitious medical bill allegedly showing that his client had been treated fifteen times by a certain doctor, even though the client never in fact saw that doctor. Defendant was tried by the court without a jury under an indictment charging grand larceny by false pretenses, common law larceny and conspiracy as a misdemeanor. The court found the defendant ‘guilty of the crimes as charged in the indictment.’

The issue in this case is whether the criminal court in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.

Continue reading

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendants, through their respective counsels, move for an order dismissing this indictment for lack of prosecution. These defendants, together with two other defendants, were indicted for the crimes of robbery in the first degree; grand larceny, first degree; grand larceny, second degree, three counts; assault, second degree; kidnapping and burglary, third degree by an indictment filed April 29, 1959. At that time these defendants were in the custody of the San Francisco Police Department upon charges pending against them by the State of California. During the month of April 1959 these defendants were indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in the Northern District of the State of California charged in a three count indictment with interstate transportation of stolen property, concealment of that stolen property and with conspiracy.

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, on May 1, 1959 the New York City Police Department sent a telegraphic warrant to the San Francisco Police Department requesting that these defendants be held in $50,000 bail. Thereafter on May 14, 1959 the District Attorney of Queens County communicated with the San Francisco Police Department and agreed to reduction of the bail on these defendants to $10,000 each if the criminal defendants executed waivers of extradition as promised by their attorneys. On May 20, 1959 both these defendants executed extradition waivers whereby they waived the service of the warrant of the Governor of the State of California and further agreed to accompany a duly authorized agent of the State of New York to the City of New York. This waiver only applied to the jurisdiction of the State of California and was not a waiver as to the jurisdiction of the United States Government under the Federal indictment.

A Queens Robbery Lawyer said that these defendants pleaded guilty before the Federal Court and were sentenced on July 28, 1959 to serve extensive terms in the Federal Penitentiary at McNeil Island in the State of Washington. Thereafter a superseding indictment was filed in this court against these two defendants together with two others for the same crimes as set forth in indictment 494-59. On December 11, 1959, indictment was dismissed on motion of the District Attorney of Queens County because of said superseding indictment.

Continue reading

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant, filed a motion with this Court vacating his judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL §440.10 and 440.20. In this motion, the defendant alleges that he was deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel. In this claim, the defendant specifically alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective in that counsel failed to argue that the defendant’s North Carolina convictions did not qualify the defendant as a second felony offender and that trial counsel improperly advised the defendant against testifying at the trial or this indictment.

In addition, the defendant alleges that he was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender at his sentencing hearing. The People oppose the defendant’s application in its entirety. In addition, the People seek an order of this Court enjoining the defendant from filing any further pro se motions.

This indictment arose out of an incident that took place on June 11, 1996. On that date, the defendant, and his co-defendant cut through a chain-link fence that surrounded the Custom Coach Limousine Company, on Hillside Avenue, in Queens. Then, after knocking a hole in a wall, the defendant and his co-defendant entered an office and proceeded to ransack file cabinets, overturn a desk and remove keys for several limousines parked outside. Each defendant proceeded to steal a limousine.

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 October 28, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty and imposing sentence.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was charged, by felony complaint, with, inter alia, grand larceny in the first degree under Penal Law § 155.42. The felony complaint alleged that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully stole property exceeding one million dollars in value by using personal identifying information he received from four named individuals, and, inter alia, securing mortgages on two properties in the name of one of the alleged victims without that individual’s knowledge or permission. The defendant waived indictment by a grand jury and pleaded guilty under superior court information to grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree, although the plea to the scheme to defraud count was subsequently vacated at the time of sentencing. The charge in the superior court information named two financial institutions “and others” as alleged victims of the crimes. As the defendant properly contends, the judgment of conviction must be reversed, the plea vacated, and the superior court information dismissed.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny.

Continue reading