You are here: / / IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE AMBIGUOUS, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VICTIM’S...

IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE AMBIGUOUS, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VICTIM’S IDENTITY IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, HERE DEFENDANT USED HER OWN NAME, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined defendant’s conviction of identity theft first degree must be vacated. Defendant tried to cash a check which was not actually from the bank identified on the face of the check. The People argued defendant was assuming the identity of the bank, which is a “person” under the law. The First Department, disagreeing with the 4th Department, found that the identity theft statute was ambiguous and the rule of lenity required the statute be interpreted to require proof of the assumption of the victim’s identity as an element of the offense:

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant assumed the identity of another person. The People argue that defendant assumed the identity of H & R Block Bank when she attempted to cash a check that contained the bank’s personal identifying information (the company’s name, address, account number, and routing number). However, the People did not demonstrate that the result of defendant’s use of that information was that she assumed the bank’s identity. To be sure, defendant presented a check containing the personal identifying information of H & R Block. However, the check was made payable to defendant, in her real name. Defendant presented her own identification establishing her identity as Blondine Destin, and signed her own name on the back of the check when the bank teller asked her to endorse it. None of the TD Bank employees were under the impression that defendant was anyone other than herself … . Thus … the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that defendant committed identity theft, because she did not assume the identity of the victim … . People v Destin, 2017 NY Slip Op 02767, 1st Dept, 4-11-17

CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE AMBIGUOUS, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VICTIM’S IDENTITY IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, HERE DEFENDANT USED HER OWN NAME, CONVICTION REVERSED)/IDENTITY THEFT (IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE AMBIGUOUS, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VICTIM’S IDENTITY IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, HERE DEFENDANT USED HER OWN NAME, CONVICTION REVERSED)

You might also like
WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT DUPLICATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT).
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE AT A RODRIGUEZ HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY; HERE PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REBUT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT, EVEN THOUGH THE TREATING PHYSICIAN’S TESTIMONY COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE CASE-IN-CHIEF (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BEAM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Criteria for Negligence on Part of Out-of-Possession Landlord with Limited Right of Reentry​
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMEDY THE INADEQUATE ORAL COLLOQUY.

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

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A RECORDED OPTION TO BUY LAND WAS PROPERLY ORDERED DESPITE... FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER.