Articles Posted in Grand Larceny

Published on:

Sentencing for a Grand Larceny, as with most theft-related crimes, depends largely on the amount of money alleged to have been stolen by a defendant. New York Grand Larceny Charges are brought as felony criminal charges and are used to prosecute any theft over $1,000. Petit Larceny, theft under $1,000, is prosecuted as a misdemeanor offense.

The law does not outline specific sentences for the various classifications of grand larceny; rather, judges are given discretion within the limitations outlined by the statute. There are a variety of factors which will likely weigh in on a grand larceny sentencing decision; some of these such factors are:

• Prior criminal record

Published on:

When a Simple Petit Larceny or Petty Theft Becomes a Felony Grand Larceny in New York:

The laws governing larceny will usually contain sentencing options, either a list of possible sentences or a range of years, as well as fines or other alternative sentences. Judges can determine the appropriate sentence by examining the facts of the case and choosing the best penalty that falls within the bounds of the statute.

In a larceny case, the type of larceny will also greatly influence the severity of the sentence. Grand larcenies carry much longer sentences than do petit (or “petty”) larcenies. Some states also impose different sentences based on the type of item that the defendant stole.

Published on:

Criminal tampering, applies when someone breaks a payphone, or unlawfully tampers or makes a connection with property of a gas, electric, sewer, stream, water-works, or with the property of any public carrier or a public utility operated by a municipality or district.

Under the New York Penal Law, a person is guilty of Tampering with Public Records in the Second Degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in, or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant. Tampering with Public Records in the Second Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

A person is guilty of Tampering with Public Records in the First Degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, and with intent to defraud, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in, or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant. Tampering with Public Records in the First Degree is a class D felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

Published on:

Larceny is what most people think of as common theft: it is the taking of someone else’s property without the use of force from a location other than inside their home. Car theft forms a typical instance of larceny. The offense developed under the common law, but most states that still recognize the crime of larceny have codified its elements into their penal code. While each state has its own definition of criminal larceny (or theft), most of them incorporate the following elements in some form.

The Elements of Larceny are the following:

• The unlawful taking and carrying away of Someone else’s property

Published on:

According to a Nassau County Grand Larceny Attorney, the defendant was originally charged with a felony violation of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, which was subsequently reduced to the class A misdemeanor charge of petit larceny, upon the application of the People. Subsequently, the People made an application to dismiss the misdemeanor charge in order to further the interests of justice. The People’s application was granted by the Court, and the accusatory instrument was dismissed. The People allege that the application for dismissal was made because of the People’s inability to contact the complainant. Now the People have made a motion for an order to restore the above-entitled action to the calendar to allow the People to reprosecute this case on the original felony charge of violating PL Sec. 155.30, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the Criminal Procedure Law fails to bar renewed prosecution of a misdemeanor charge that has been dismissed in the interest of justice upon the People’s motion pursuant to CPL Sec. 170.30 subd. (1)(g). However, this does not appear to be a legislative oversight since the legislature did provide for a bar to renewed prosecutions in other situations. Section 210.20 of the CPL provides that reprosecution of an indictment is barred where the indictment has been dismissed due to immunity, double jeopardy, statute of limitations, and denial of speedy trial. However, Section 210.20 provides that where an indictment had been dismissed in the interest of justice, pursuant to 210.20 subd. (1)(i), the Court may, upon application of the People, authorize the People to submit the charge to the grand jury. Accordingly, a superior court has the statutory authority to grant reprosecution of a felony charge where the indictment had been previously dismissed in the interests of justice.

A Nassau County Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, in similar manner, the District Court should have the authority to grant reprosecution of an accusatory instrument on a misdemeanor charge where the accusatory instrument was originally dismissed in the furtherance of justice pursuant to CPL Sec. 170.30. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Law which forbids the reinstatement of a misdemeanor prosecution. Furthermore, there is no double jeopardy involved since double jeopardy does not attach until a witness is sworn at trial.

Published on:

A Nassau Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, in a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated March 2, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated January 2, 2007, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, attempted robbery in the second degree (four counts), and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree (four counts), adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of two years. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order dated January 2, 2007.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with robbery in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the third degree and petit larceny. On appearing before the trial court defendant, through counsel, requested a waiver of a jury trial. Because of the fact that his educational background was rather minimal, the record indicates that defendant was queried extensively and was informed not only as to his rights, but the extent and impact of the waiver, and that he was fully aware of the fact that he was waiving a trial by jury.

The evidence presented by the presentment agency established that the appellant was part of a group of individuals who surrounded three boys, demanded money from them, searched their pockets, and hit them. The complainant arrived at the scene at some point after the incident began, and there was no evidence that any of the perpetrators directed any conduct, threats, or words toward her. Since the presentment agency failed to demonstrate that complainant was anything more than a mere spectator, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the appellant committed acts against her which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the second degree and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree.

Published on:

This is a motion for re-argument of our recent order denying a second application for reinstatement to practice law. A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, petitioner, 55 years old, was admitted to practice in this department in 1955. In 1968 he was disbarred after a complaint that he had converted a considerable sum of money constituting the legacy of the estate of his wife’s aunt, which he had represented. Petitioner had voluntarily offered his resignation in the face of this criminal charge. In 1969, after his disbarment, he was indicted for grand larceny first degree in connection with this conversion of funds, and in 1971 he was convicted of the Class A misdemeanor of petit larceny on the basis of a negotiated plea. He was sentenced to three years probation with a condition of continued restitution. He was discharged from probation in November 1974.

Since his disbarment he has worked as an editor for West Publishing Co., operated a hobby supply shop, worked as a salesman, and since 1977 has been employed in the Nassau County Labor Department, since May 1979 as assistant to the Director of Labor Relations. His prior difficulties precluded him from obtaining employment as an insurance agent or as a commodity futures dealer. Petitioner has been active in local civic, service, charitable, religious and political organizations. In 1977 he was licensed as a real estate sales person and commissioned as a notary public.

A Nassau Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, petitioner initially applied for reinstatement in 1980. His application was supported in part by affirmations and affidavits of four attorneys, including a retired justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department, attesting to his upstanding life over the preceding several years, his good standing in the community, his stable family life, abstention from alcohol since at least 1973 and his diligence, integrity, loyalty and commitment to responsibility in the employ of the Nassau County government. His application at that time was opposed by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee in part on the ground that petitioner had failed to make sufficient restitution. We denied the application at that time without granting an evidentiary hearing to explore the question (79 A.D.2d 550).

Published on:

A Nassau Sex Crime Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered March 22, 1990, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, rape in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

The issue in this case is whether defendant is liable for all his criminal charges.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the lineup identification by an eyewitness was not the result of undue suggestiveness even though the defendant was the only person common to both the lineup and the photographic array. This court has previously explained that “procedures involving the repeated display of a single photograph in successive arrays until a positive identification is obtained are viewed with great caution by the courts”. However, the potential for irreparable misidentification is not manifest when the eyewitness views an array containing a photograph of the defendant and subsequently views the defendant in person during a lineup. Viewing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the pretrial identification, there is no basis in the record to disturb the determination of the hearing court. The eyewitness was unable to identify the defendant from the photographic array in which his picture appeared, but subsequently identified him from a lineup approximately one month later. This criminal procedure was not so conducive to the possibility of irreparable misidentification as to require suppression of the lineup identification.

Published on:

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered September 17, 2009, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts), identity theft in the first degree (four counts), and scheme to defraud in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly determined that the police lawfully stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger, and that his arrest was supported by probable cause. Accordingly, the court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of grand larceny in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence, we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor. Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.

Published on:

The defendant, following trial before a jury, stands convicted of the crime of Burglary in the third Degree. The People have filed against the defendant a Second Felony Offender Statement pursuant to CPL 400.21, alleging previous felony convictions on June 9, 1976 for the crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and an Attempt to Commit the Crime of Burglary in the Third Degree, Class E Felonies.

For the purpose of determining whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony under PL Section 70.06, the sentence must have been imposed not more than ten years before the commission of the present offense.

As the present offense occurred on October 27, 1986, which is clearly more than ten years after the defendant’s predicate criminal felony conviction of June 9, 1976, the People rely on the tolling provision of the statute.

Contact Information