You are here: / / “Criminal Enterprise” Does Not Require Continuity of Criminal Partici...

“Criminal Enterprise” Does Not Require Continuity of Criminal Participants

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, the First Department determined that, with respect to “enterprise corruption,” the term “criminal enterprise” (Penal Law 460.10[3]) requires “a continuity of existence, structure and criminal purpose beyond the scope of individual criminal incidents”…, not criminal “participants[.]”  The case involved fraudulent billing of insurers by the defendants who were hired to provide medical and chiropractic services by one Vinarsky:

Both defendants * * * argue that because Vinarsky was essential to the operation of the [clinic], it lacked the structure to maintain the necessary continuity of existence in his absence. Thus, they conclude, the clinic did not meet the statutory requirements of a criminal enterprise essential to sustain conviction for their participation in its operation. * * *

The evidence before the jury amply demonstrates that defendants were engaged in a criminal enterprise overseen by Vinarsky. It embraced more than one clinic, extended over a period of years, and involved a succession of patients whose medical history was used to procure income by an organization structured to facilitate the fraudulent billing of insurers, which paid some $6 million for services allegedly provided by the … clinic. Thus, the jury was warranted in concluding that the criminal enterprise had a continuity that extended beyond any individual patient or transaction. People v Keschner, 2013 NY Slip Op 05975, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

You might also like
INCARCERATED FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED IN-PERSON VISITATION WITH HIS SON ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS; FATHER HAD STABBED MOTHER WHILE SHE WAS HOLDING THE CHILD AND FATHER HAD HARASSED MOTHER DURING PERMITTED PHONE CALLS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF FELL 13 OR 14 FEET FROM THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK.
SIX YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING DEFENDANT TO TRIAL WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PEOPLE’S ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE; DISMISSAL ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED.
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.
THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) WAS “INSANE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CPLR WHEN HE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY MUST BE DETERMINED AT THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; IF THE IP WAS INSANE, THE MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL BE TOLLED; IF NOT THE MALPRACTICE ACTION IS UNTIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE FELL OVER A WORKER WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OFF AN ELLIPTICAL MACHINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply Where There... Ambiguity of Contract Is a Question of Fact Where Credibility of Extrinsic Evidence...