You are here: / / MERE USE OF ANOTHER’S PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, LIKE A CREDIT...

MERE USE OF ANOTHER’S PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, LIKE A CREDIT CARD NUMBER, ESTABLISHES A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK’S IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE, THERE IS NO NEED TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT ASSUMED THE VICTIM’S IDENTITY IN SOME ADDITIONAL WAY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined that New York’s identity theft statute is violated by the use of personal identifying information, like a credit card number, without more. The 1st Department case, which was reversed, had held the mere use of personal identifying information is insufficient, and the People must establish a defendant both used the victim’s personal identifying information and assumed the victim’s identity. The 1st Department concluded the proof had established that defendant used the personal identifying information of the victim but not that he assumed her identity. (The defendant in the 1st Department case had assumed the identity of a fictitious person.) The 4th Department case, which was affirmed, concluded defendant’s use of the victim’s name and bank account number established she assumed his identity within the meaning of the statute, and the phrase “assumes the identity of another person” is not a discrete element of the identity theft statute:

The common issue presented in these appeals is whether the People may establish that a defendant “assumes the identity of another,” within the meaning of New York’s identity theft statute, by proof that the defendant used another’s personal identifying information, such as that person’s name, bank account, or credit card number. Defendants … argue that the use of personal identifying information does not automatically establish that a defendant assumes another’s identity, and thus the People bear the burden of establishing independently both a defendant’s use of protected information and assumptive conduct. The Appellate Division departments have split on the proper interpretation of the disputed statutory text. The 1st Department adopted the construction advanced here by defendants, leading to its conclusion that [the] conviction of identity theft was unsupported by sufficient evidence. By contrast, the 4th Department concluded that the statute applies when a defendant uses the personal identifying information of another, upholding [the] conviction. We now reject defendants’ decontextualized interpretation of the statutory language and conclude that the law defines the use of personal identifying information of another as one of the express means by which a defendant assumes that person’s identity. People v Roberts, 2018 NY Slip Op 03172, CtApp 5-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTITY THEFT, MERE USE OF ANOTHER’S PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, LIKE A CREDIT CARD NUMBER, ESTABLISHES A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK’S IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE, THERE IS NO NEED TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT ASSUMED THE VICTIM’S IDENTITY IN SOME ADDITIONAL WAY (CT APP))/IDENTITY THEFT (MERE USE OF ANOTHER’S PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, LIKE A CREDIT CARD NUMBER, ESTABLISHES A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK’S IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE, THERE IS NO NEED TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT ASSUMED THE VICTIM’S IDENTITY IN SOME ADDITIONAL WAY (CT APP))

You might also like
FUNDS FOR PERSONAL CARE SERVICES ARE MEDICAID FUNDS SUBJECT TO THE AUDIT AND RECOUPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP)..
CITY’S DETERMINATION IT WOULD NOT DEFEND A POLICE OFFICER IN A SUIT ALLEGING THE OFFICER’S USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; HIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTED “INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING” WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (CT APP).
Where a Defendant Has Been Convicted of an Armed Felony or an Enumerated Sex Offense Pursuant to CPL (Criminal Procedure Law) 720.10(2)a)(ii ie (iii), Even If the Defendant Has Not Requested or Has Explicitly Waived “Youthful Offender” Status, the Court Must Determine, On the Record, Whether Mitigating Circumstances Exist, and, If So, Must Determine On the Record Whether the Defendant Should Be Adjudicated a Youthful Offender
PLAINTIFFS SOUGHT TO FORECLOSE ON LOANS TO THE BORROWERS WHO THEN STARTED BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS; PLAINTIFFS THEN SUED DEFENDANTS, WHO ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE FORECLOSURE/BANKRUPTCY ACTIONS, FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH THE LOAN AGREEMENTS; THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT ACTIONS ARE NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAW (CT APP).
residency requirements for school district employees are enforceable.
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT AND PLANNING OF THE MURDER OF DEFENDANT’S WIFE AND MOTHER-IN-LAW DID NOT CONSTITUTE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPTED MURDER (CT APP).
THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY; THE TRANSFER WAS COMPENSATION FOR CARE, NOT A GIFT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS A GIFT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE GIFTS (CT APP). ​
FAILURE TO RAISE THE SPECIFIC OBJECTION ARGUED ON APPEAL AND FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY JOIN IN AN OBJECTION BY CO-COUNSEL RENDERED THE OBJECTIONS UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL, EVIDENCE OF GANG STRUCTURE PROPERLY ADMITTED TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND INTENT, AND TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (CT APP).

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

ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A REGULATION ALLOWING CITY... ALLOWING UBER DRIVERS TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE APPLICATION IS NOT...