Articles Posted in Grand Larceny

Published on:

A Queens Robbery Lawyer said that this in an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 12, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and escape in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, the evidence reveals that at about 6:30 P.M. on May 27, 1980, the Police Officer and his partner, Sergeant were driving through a parking lot located at 79-00 Queens Boulevard when the Police Officer observed the defendant with a screwdriver in his hand, standing at the rear of a vehicle opening its trunk. As the Sergeant approached defendant in order to question him, defendant ran. Defendant, however, was eventually caught and placed under arrest for attempted grand larceny in the second degree, a felony, and possession of burglar’s tools. Following his arrest, defendant complained of a stomachache and was taken to Elmhurst General Hospital.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, this is a motion by the defendant for an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes, or in the alternative for an order dismissing the indictment. He contends that the testimony adduced before the Grand Jury did not spell out the crime charged against him and that illegal and improper evidence was produced before the Grand Jury. The indictment contains three counts; however, the defendant is charged only with the third count which alleges that he and his co-defendant conspired to commit the crime of grand larceny.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant contends that the testimony heard by the Grand Jury caused that body to be ‘left to speculate the value of his’ report and medical bill in the amount of $95.00 and the effect thereof, if any, upon the award of $850.00 for the personal injury aspect of the claim’; that ‘there is no evidence from which the Grand Jury could conclude that the purportedly exaggerated medical bill and report had the effect of increasing the award to the extent that a felony would be accomplished’ and that ‘this was sheer speculation on its part.’

Continue reading

Published on:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction after trial rendered by the County Court, Bronx County, sentencing defendant-appellant to 3 1/2 to 7 years in State Prison after he had been found guilty of criminally receiving and criminally concealing stolen property, as felonies. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, this defendants, not apprehended, were indicted, charged with the crimes of grand larceny in the first degree; criminally receiving stolen goods as a felony; criminally withholding stolen goods as a felony, and conspiracy.

A Bronx Grand Larceny Lawyer said that defendant was found guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree, defendant-appellant was convicted of the crimes of criminally receiving and criminally withholding stolen goods as felonies, with the disposition heretofore indicated. The conspiracy count was withdrawn after summation by defense counsel and before the case was submitted to the jury.

Continue reading

Published on:

In this criminal case, a Bronx Grand Larceny Lawyer said that defendants-appellants, members of the New York City Police Force, were indicted, together with another, for the crime of conspiracy in the second degree, (Penal Law 105.10) grand larceny in the first degree (extortion), bribe receiving, receiving reward for official misconduct and official misconduct. At the trial, the latter two counts on official misconduct were removed from jury consideration. The jury acquitted on the charges of grand larceny and bribe receiving, but convicted on the charge of conspiracy in the second degree.

The issue in this case is whether defendants are guilty of conspiracy.

Continue reading

Published on:

In criminal case, the defendant appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

The court ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by (1) reversing the convictions of grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the third degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment, and (2) vacating the sentence imposed on the conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing on the conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree.

Continue reading

Published on:

In the first grand larceny case, Defendant was indicted for burglary in the third degree, attempted grand larceny in the first degree, and possession of burglar’s instruments, as a misdemeanor. The defendant desired to plead guilty to attempted grand larceny in the second degree to cover the entire indictment. Prior to accepting the guilty plea, the court asked defendant if he had entered the premises which he was charged with burglarizing with intent to steal money, and defendant responded that he had such intent but that there was no money on the premises. The criminal defendant was permitted to withdraw his plea of not guilty and to plead guilty to attempted grand larceny in the second degree to cover the entire indictment.

The Supreme Court, Queens County convicted the defendant, on his plea of guilty, of attempted grand larceny in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division. The defendant contended in the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty since the facts elicited from him by the Supreme Court did not establish the commission of attempted grand larceny, which required an attempt to take property of any value from any person or to take property in excess of a specified value in any manner. The People contended in the Court of Appeals that the fact that the defendant did not find any money on the premises did not make acceptance of his plea of guilty to the reduced charge improper.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is an appeal by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County all rendered September 21, 2007, convicting him of (1) grand larceny in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), criminal impersonation in the second degree (four counts), and scheme to defraud in the first degree, under Indictment No. 2096/04, (2) grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), criminal impersonation in the second degree (two counts), scheme to defraud in the first degree, and practicing or appearing as an attorney without being admitted and registered (two counts), under Indictment No. 439/05, and (3) grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), scheme to defraud in the first degree, criminal impersonation in the second degree (two counts), and practicing or appearing as an attorney without being admitted and registered, under Indictment No. 2434/05, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Bronx Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, the attempted grand larceny of a motor vehicle, took place, several days before the effective date of the 1986 amendment to the Penal Law. The sentence was imposed after the effective date of the statute, however, and defendant is entitled to retroactive application of the ameliorative amendment to the Penal Law, which reduces the punishment for the white collar crime charged. Mail fraud was suspected also.

Continue reading

Published on:

On May 29, 1953, the accused man was indicted, by long form indictment, on four counts of common-law larceny–one count of grand larceny and three counts of petit larceny. None of the counts alleged that he made use of false or fraudulent representations in the course of accomplishing the various thefts. Under the circumstances, criminal evidence of such representations could not be received over his objection. When the complainant sought to introduce such evidence during the course of the trial, the accused man objected. Thereupon, acting pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court permitted the complainant, over the accused man’s objection, to amend the indictment by adding four new counts, each the same as the four original counts, except that allegations of false pretense and fraudulent representation were included in the new counts. The accused was thereafter found guilty only of count 5 (grand larceny in the first degree by false pretenses), the other 7 counts having been dismissed. The judgment of conviction was reversed by the court and the indictment was dismissed. The dismissal of the indictment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the trial court was without statutory authority to grant the amendment of the indictment.

On November 9, 1955, the accused man was indicted for grand larceny in the first degree committed as a result of false pretenses and fraudulent representations, the indictment being for the same crime charged in count 5 of the prior indictment, as amended at the trial.

Continue reading

Published on:

The criminal defendant and two co-defendants were indicted for multiple counts of forgery and grand larceny for having endorsed and cashed New York State employment checks over a three year period. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to one count of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and was to receive a sentence of 1-1/2 to 3 years. The plea was vacated because the minimum sentence for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree was 2 to 4 years. However, the parties agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the reduced, lesser included, crime of Attempted Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and receive the previously agreed upon sentence of 1-1/2 to 3 years. In his allocution the defendant stated that the value of the stolen property, which he received, was less than $1500.00 while the elements of the crime of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree required that the value of the property exceed that amount. In the minutes of the plea proceeding supplied by the defendant, he is not advised of his right to appeal.

The defendant’s motion sought to have his sentence set aside twenty-six years after it was imposed. The grounds for such relief are statutory and require a showing that the sentence was unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law. Bail reduction was not sought.

Continue reading

Published on:

The criminal defendant was indicted by a Kings County Grand Jury and charged with grand larceny in the second degree and 28 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree.

Defendant, a licensed physician, maintained an office at a private clinic, at which he provided certain care and services primarily to indigent persons, some of whom were insured under Medicaid. When a patient arrived at the Medical Center, the receptionist customarily filled in the top portion of the official Medicaid invoices by inserting the patient’s name and Medicaid number, the treating physician’s name and Medicaid provided number and the physician’s address, specialty and telephone number. After treating each patient, defendant would complete the invoice by describing the services rendered and then signing the certification attesting that he rendered the services. The invoices subsequently were used to obtain Medicaid reimbursement.

Continue reading

Contact Information