New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

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

These cases are criminal charges of grand larceny presented before the proper courts.

Records reveal that in the first case, an indictment was found for the crime of robbery alleged to have been committed on July 16, 1953, at a Bar and Grill. Two men were arrested and held to await the action of the Grand Jury. It also developed that a third man was also implicated and he was indicted and later dealt with as a Youthful Offender. The first two accused were at that time in custody in connection with another crime. The Grand Jury indicted them, for the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree and assault in the second degree with intent to commit the crimes of robbery and grand larceny.

They now filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against the three on the grounds that these three were not given a speedy and prompt trial, and that any delays were not with the specific consent of the three, pursuant to Section 668 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Continue reading

This motion for the discovery of grand jury minutes was originally brought in the Criminal Term of this court but transferred to Special Term. The motion by plaintiff is made within the framework of a civil action for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution and although the motion was originally captioned in the criminal action, the court will nonetheless deem this application to have been so brought and thus will consider the merits.

Plaintiff was indicted for grand larceny in the second degree. On October 9, 1973, on motion by defense counsel at the end of the People’s case, the indictment was dismissed. The instant action was commenced in March 1974 against the complainants in the criminal case. An order of the court, made after hearing the District Attorney, is required for the disclosure of grand jury testimony.

The issue precisely framed is whether a plaintiff in a civil action for malicious prosecution can discover the grand jury testimony of the complaining witnesses in the criminal case which forms the basis of the action. In evolving rules governing the use of grand jury testimony, courts have generally refused to permit disclosure unless the moving party was connected with law enforcement.

Continue reading