From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 2006
33 A.D.3d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Summary

finding defendant's intention to defraud the state, particularly the State Insurance Fund, could be inferred based upon his failure to disclose employment activities on forms he submitted for the purpose of receiving continued benefits

Summary of this case from People v. Thomas

Opinion

No. 2005-03926.

October 17, 2006.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered April 25, 2005, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Before: Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review since the perfunctory and general motion to dismiss made at the close of the People's case failed to specify any grounds for dismissal ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Leon, 19 AD3d 509, 509-510, affd 7 NY3d 109; People v Alexander 12 AD3d 524). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of four counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree ( see Penal Law § 175.35) beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's intent to defraud the New York State Insurance Fund (hereinafter SIF) could be inferred from his failure to disclose his work for his own business on questionnaire forms which he was periodically required to fill out and file with SIF as a condition for receiving continued benefits from SIF ( see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296; People v Scutt, 19 AD3d 1131, 1132; People v Hure, 16 AD3d 774, 775). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).


Summaries of

People v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 2006
33 A.D.3d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

finding defendant's intention to defraud the state, particularly the State Insurance Fund, could be inferred based upon his failure to disclose employment activities on forms he submitted for the purpose of receiving continued benefits

Summary of this case from People v. Thomas
Case details for

People v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS THOMPSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 17, 2006

Citations

33 A.D.3d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 7511
823 N.Y.S.2d 112

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

Furthermore, and again contrary to Defendant's contention, court interpretation of the statute has not…