A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, this is a criminal action wherein defendant stands charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Falsifying Business Records, Conspiracy, and related sex crime, The indictment alleges that defendant and the co-defendant fraudulently obtained paid assignments from a Transit Authority (Authority) to procure independent medical examinations of plaintiffs who had sued the said transit authority. Defendant is charged with obtaining the transit authority vendor assignments for his company by using a fictitious name. The People say he thus concealed the fact that he had also been retained as outside counsel for in the defense of personal injury lawsuits a circumstance which, the People say, would have disqualified him from being paid to procure medical examinations.
A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant, an attorney, acted as outside counsel for the Transit Authority personal injury lawsuits against it. The People allege that defendant and co-defendant, the director of the Legal Support Unit (hereinafter “LSU”) at the Authority, formed a business entity. The indictment alleges that in April 2007, defendant, employing a pseudonym, submitted a business proposal on behalf of the entity to co-defendant in her capacity as director of the LSU. The proposal was approved and called for Advance to receive assignments from the LSU to schedule plaintiffs who had filed personal injury lawsuits against the Authority. In return, the entity would earn a fee of $400 per scheduled report.
In their Memorandum of Law in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, the People add that defendant had a long-standing personal relationship with co-defendant. According to the indictment, defendant resided in the Brooklyn residence of co-defendant for 4 months in 2008. The overt acts listed under the Conspiracy count in the indictment include an allegation that defendant paid $242.54 to satisfy the bill of co-Defendant. There is also an allegation in the list of overt acts that defendant drafted and signed a $676.57 check for the billing account of co-defendant.
A Kings Sex Crime Lawyer said that, defendant argues that the indictment must be dismissed because there was no evidence of intent to defraud the Authority or that it has sustained any pecuniary loss as a result of defendant’s use of a fictitious name. More particularly, defendant contends that the crimes with which he has been charged require that he had the intent to defraud it, and that, while his conduct may have been deceptive, there is no evidence that he acted with an intent to “defraud.” Relatedly, defendant asserts that the People have not shown that the Authority sustained a loss, a necessary element of larceny. Defendant argues that the basis of his bargain with the Authority was for defendant to provide examinations and reports to it for a fee of $400 per examination plus report, that he did precisely that, and that defendant’s concealment of his identity did not have any effect on the bargain. Thus, he argues, the bank provided the Authority with the exact product agreed to and defendant was fairly paid in accordance with the agreement.
The issue in this case is whether the complainant received the bargained-for benefit.
The Court held that the elements required to establish larceny by false pretenses are: 1) criminal intent to deprive the owner of property; 2) making a false material representation; 3) obtaining the property of another; and 4) reliance by the victim upon the representation. Put another way, in order to establish larceny by false pretenses, the proof must show that the defendant obtained the property of another by means of an intentional false representation about a prior or existing material fact, upon which representation the victim relied in parting with the property.
Charges of larceny by false pretenses not infrequently originate in the context of a contractual relationship between the defendant and the complainant. Courts have struggled with the danger of applying criminal liability to conduct arising out of purely civil breaches of contract. “There is a very real danger that ordinary business transactions might be inhibited due to the risk of prosecuting one who is guilty of nothing more than a mere failure to pay his debts or an inability to perform contractual obligations.” “Criminal charges of false pretense are often instituted in reality to compel the payment of debt, and are easily fabricated.” “The law does not criminal every breach of contract, and will only call it a larceny when a party has effectively obtained property by a fraud to the detriment of the other party.”
The most pivotal inquiry in determining whether larceny occurred in a contractual setting is whether the complainant received the bargained-for benefit. “There would be no taking if the property received was what the alleged victim bargained for.” In order for the elements of larceny to be met, there must be a taking. If an owner consents to part with the property in exchange for a received benefit, there is no taking and no larceny.
It has been held that the assumption of an obligation under a contract cannot be the subject of larceny. In a case, the defendant induced the complainant to sign a lease for a hotel, representing that it was a “respectable” hotel. The complainant relied on that representation, but after the lease was executed discovered the hotel was used for prostitution. The defendant’s misrepresentations induced the complainant to enter into the contract. The court held that the facts did not make out larceny by false pretenses.
To Be Cont…..
If you are facing criminal charges, you will need the representation of a Kings Criminal Attorney and/or Kings Sex Crime Attorney, otherwise, you will not be able to defend your case properly. Call us at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.