New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The defendant allegedly made a series of false and fraudulent representations to a Medical Service to the effect that he had rendered certain medical services to a number of patients on various dates. These several representations resulted in the delivery of nine checks, each one amounting to less than $100., but totaling in all $612. The indictment, comprising 19 counts, charges defendant with the crime of Grand larceny in the First Degree in the amount of $612. and in the subsequent 18 counts each check is the subject of a Petit larceny count as well as a violation of § 1202 of the Penal Law, i. e. presenting false proofs of loss in support of a claim upon a policy of insurance.

A Nassau County Criminal Attorney said that Defendant demurs to the sufficiency of the indictment, insisting that the first count of Grand larceny in the First Degree alleges a number of separate larcenies rather than a series of takings or acts of theft constituting a single larceny. These counts of the indictment charging violation of § 1202 of the Penal Law, i. e. presenting false proofs of loss, are challenged as insufficient in form and violative of §§ 275 and 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The indictment is further assailed on the ground that sufficient averment is lacking to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.

The facts of the case provides: ‘The defendant , partly in the County of Nassau and partly in the County of New York, between, on or about May 1, 1956 and on or about December 31, 1956, stole, took and carried from the possession of a certain property, owned by it, having an aggregate value of $612., to wit: nine checks, seven of which were in the respective amounts of $72. each, one in the amount of $60. and one in the amount of $48., with the intent to deprive the owner of said property, and of the use and benefit thereof and to appropriate the same to the use of said defendant.

Continue reading

According to a Nassau County Criminal Attorney, the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District filed this motion to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law, due to his felony conviction. On November 1, 2010, the respondent was convicted in the Nassau County Court, Criminal Term, after a jury trial of scheme to defraud in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of a forgery device, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, forgery in the third degree, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree and criminal impersonation in the second degree.

A Nassau County Grand Larceny Attorney said that, on December 7, 2010, the respondent was sentenced to terms of imprisonment of one to three years for scheme to defraud in the first degree; one to three years for grand larceny in the second degree; one to three years for each of the 11 counts of grand larceny in the third degree; one to three years for each of the 3 counts of criminal possession of a forgery device; one to three years for attempted grand larceny in the third degree; one year for each of the 10 counts of forgery in the third degree; one year for each of the 7 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree; and one year for each of the 2 counts of criminal impersonation in the second degree. As some of the sentences were ordered to run consecutively, and others were ordered to run concurrently, the respondent’s maximum sentence is 10 to 20 years. In addition, he was directed to pay restitution in the sum of $296,750.

According to a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer, the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the Grievance Committee) now moves to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) based upon his felony conviction. The respondent opposes the Grievance Committee’s motion as premature in light of his pending appeal of his convictions.

Continue reading

This is a criminal action where the defendant was charged with Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, Attempted Grand larceny in the Third Degree, Grand larceny in the Third Degree and Defrauding the Government. The essence of the charges against the defendant is that he falsely claimed that he was permanently disabled and unable to work as a police officer and that he improperly collected money from Nassau County based upon these claims.

The criminal court has considered the following in reaching its decision: Defendant’s Notice of Motion to dismiss the indictment and supportive papers; Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Notice of Motion to Dismiss Indictment; People’s Opposition and supportive papers;

Defendant’s Reply and supportive papers and People’s Surreply and supportive papers. The Grand Jury minutes have been reviewed in camera and it is not necessary to release the minutes or any portion thereof to Defendant’s counsel to assist the court in making its determination.

Continue reading

Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial in Suffolk County Court, of 13 counts of grand larceny in the second degree and 2 counts of grand larceny in the third degree. Subsequently, he was convicted of 36 counts of grand larceny in the second degree and 4 counts of grand larceny in the third degree in a nonjury trial in County Court, Nassau County.

On these appeals, defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt of the crime of larceny by false promise, beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, he maintains that the People’s proof failed to exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but that at the time defendant or his authorized agents induced people to invest money with him by promising them an inordinately high rate of return in a short period, he had no intention of fulfilling his promises.

A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that the true manner in which defendant obtained possession of the money and the uses to which those funds were applied was revealed through the testimony of his agents, as well as the statements and actions of the defendant himself. The defendant’s chief associate and supervisor of his sales force, testified that when he met the defendant in late 1971 he was immediately impressed with his aura of prosperity. Offered a position as a solicitor of investor funds, Merlo was informed that although Associates and its subsidiaries stood behind the investments, the key to the continued success of the scheme was the constant accretion of new investment funds into the plan. He initially attracted a number of new investors, trading on the appearance of prosperity surrounding Associates and the defendant together with the promise of a large rate of return on a short-term investment.

Continue reading

According to a Nassau County Grand Larceny Attorney, a defendant filed an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 3, 1977, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. After hearing on the appeal, the Court ruled that judgment appealed from is reversed on the law.

Defendant was indicted for the crimes of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. It was alleged that he had stolen certain property from a certain Company in Nassau County. Admittedly, the criminal defendant drove with a man named S to the store and waited in the car while S went inside. Fifteen minutes later S emerged from the store with an armful of clothing worth $500 and jumped into the car. They drove through the parking lot and turned onto Northern Boulevard, pursued by a radio patrol car. The officer in pursuit saw articles of clothing being thrown out of the window, which were recovered after defendant was apprehended.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the defendant contends that he was ignorant of S’s plan and when he saw what S had done he told him, as they drove away, to get rid of the clothing. The officer in pursuit estimated the speed of defendant’s vehicle at 65 to 70 miles per hour.

According to sources, the instant case involves three kinds of indictment against all accused ordered by the lower court after trial and hearing of evidences, as regards respective charges against them. They move for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and for dismissal of the instant indictment, on the ground that it was not founded on legally sufficient evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in all respects.

The first count of the indictment accuses the offenders of a violation of Section 170.10, subd. 3, of the Penal Law as follows: forgery in the second degree, committed as follows: ‘The corporation, and an officer in the Corporation doing business as engaged in Motor Sales, on or about the 30th day of September, 1974, with intent to defraud, deceive and injure another, falsely made, completed and altered a written instrument, of which the following is a copy, the same being and purporting to be and calculated to become and to represent, if completed, a written instrument officially issued and created by a public office, public servant and governmental instrumentality, to wit, a MV–50 form.’

A completed MV–50 form is adhered to the indictment. The proof indicates that it was a genuine and valid instrument made by an authorized agent of the corporation. A mere reading of the statutory definitions of ‘falsely make’, ‘falsely complete’, and ‘falsely alter’, as found in P.L. section 170.00, subds. 4, 5, and 6, make it patently obvious that such proof precludes even a prosecution for simple forgery.

Continue reading

The application made herein is for an order granting the petitioner permission to attend the funeral of his father in Kingston, Jamaica.

The petitioner was convicted on his plea of guilty to attempted grand larceny in the second degree, a Class E Felony, and was sentenced by a judge of this court to serve a definite term of one year in the Nassau County Correctional Institution in East Meadow.

Subsequent to the commencement of his term of imprisonment, the criminal petitioner was permitted to enter the work release program by the jail authorities, which allowed him to pursue his regular employment during the day, returning to the custody of the authorities after work and on weekends.

Continue reading

Records reflect that a man is charged with Robbery in the different degrees, Grand Larceny in different degrees.

Upon stipulation by both parties, this Court conducted a Huntley, Mapp, Dunaway and Wade hearing. The Huntley portion of the hearing pertained to a written statement allegedly made by the accused to the Police after his arrest. The Mapp portion of the hearing was regarding a Blackberry cellular phone which was allegedly seized from the criminal defendant. The Dunaway portion of the hearing was regarding the probable cause to arrest the defendant in his grandmother’s apartment. The Wade portion of the hearing was regarding a photo array which was shown to the complainant.

During the trial, a Detective testified that he was notified by the Police Department that a pedestrian robbery had occurred at approximately 7:30 p.m., at a given location. Detective immediately proceeded to that location. Upon arriving at the scene, Detective with Police Officers, and with the two complainants. The criminal complainants informed the Detective that they were walking along the Road, when a car pulled up and three men jumped out of the car and approached them. The complainants told the Detective that one of the individuals, described as a “light-skinned male black,” pulled out a dark colored handgun and demanded their cellular phones, money and valuables. One of the complainant told the Detective that the men took his Blackberry cellular phone. The complainants said that the men then got back into the car and drove away. The Detective recorded the phone number of the cellular phone, as a result of the information which he received from the complainants, he applied for a Pen Register and Trap and Trace Order, regarding complainant’s cellular phone. The Order was granted and authorized the Police to use Global Positioning Satellite (G.P.S.) technology to track the location of the cellular phone.

Continue reading

The Court was presented with two distinct issues which shall be resolved herein. In the first case, the People filed an appeal from an order of the County Court, Nassau County dated July 6, 1992, which granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss all counts of indictment which pertained to him.

The Court now reversed of the lower court’s Order, granting the criminal defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court stated that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the indictment against him is denied, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

Contrary to the County Court’s determination, we find that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the defendant. In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, the sufficiency of the People’s presentation is determined by inquiring into whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury.

Continue reading