You are here: / / DEFENDANT, PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE, TOOK DELIVERY OF TIRES AND FALSELY...

DEFENDANT, PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE, TOOK DELIVERY OF TIRES AND FALSELY SIGNED THE INVOICE; THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SENTENCED TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF INCARCERATION FOR LARCENY AND FORGERY; THE CRITERIA FOR CONSECUTIVE AND CONCURRENT SENTENCES EXPLAINED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined consecutive sentences were properly imposed for defendant’s larceny and forgery convictions:

… [T]he Exxpress Tire Delivery Company received a telephone order from Basil Ford Truck Center by someone identifying themselves as Joe Basil Jr., for next-day delivery. The following day, … the driver called a number … for “Joe Junior” for additional delivery instructions. The man who answered the call told the driver to take the tires to a business adjacent to the Basil Ford Truck Center. When the driver arrived at the location he saw “a truck with a trailer” parked “on the side of the building” with a man standing next to it. He asked the man—who he identified in-court as defendant—”if he was taking the tires for delivery,” to which the man responded “yes.” Defendant … told the driver that he was an employee of the Basil family. The two loaded the tires onto the trailer and the driver then presented defendant with the tire invoice, which defendant falsely signed: “Joe Basil.” * * *

… [I]n accordance with section 70.25 (2), “sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively: (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” … .

Under the first prong, “where the actus reus is a single inseparable act that violates more than one statute, [a] single punishment must be imposed” … . * * * Here … defendant accomplished the taking once the driver loaded the tires onto defendant’s trailer, which preceded defendant falsely signing the invoice … .

As to the second prong, courts “first look to the statutory definitions of the crimes at issue to discern whether the actus reus elements overlap” … . * * *

… [B]ecause forgery is not the exclusive means to accomplish a larceny by false pretenses, forgery is not “a necessary component” of the larceny count “in the legislative classification and definitional sense” … . … [U]nder this prong, we do not consider “the act-specific circumstances and proof of a crime” … . People v McGovern, 2024 NY Slip Op 05242, CtApp 10-24-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria for consecutive versus concurrent sentences where two crimes stem from closely related actions—here taking possession of property by false pretenses (larceny) and then falsely signing an invoice for the property(forgery).

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT “I WOULD LOVE TO GO PRO SE” WAS NOT A DEFINITIVE REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND THEREFORE THE STATEMENT DID NOT TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A SEARCHING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE (CT APP).
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO ALLOW ADDING A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (CT APP).
Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Concerning Whether the Driver of a Police Vehicle Exhibited “Reckless Disregard” for the Safety of Others In Responding to an Urgent Call—Defendant Police Officer Was Driving Against Traffic on a One-Way Street When the Collision Occurred
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE MANDATORY FINES FOR THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW OFFENSES; AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED; AN APPEAL WAIVER DOES NOT PRECLUDE ARGUING THE PLEA WAS INVOLUNTARY (CT APP).
Felony Convictions in Other Jurisdictions Need Not Have a New-York-Felony Counterpart to Be Considered Under the Persistent Felony Offender Statute
STRICT FORECLOSURE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE MAJORITY BONDHOLDERS WHICH CANCELLED THE NOTES PRECLUDED RECOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFFS WHO PURCHASED SOME OF THE NOTES IN THE SECONDARY MARKET (CT APP).
THE MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED MOTHER’S APPEAL OF FAMILY COURT’S FINDING MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING HER CUSTODY/HABEAS CORPUS PETITION STEMMING FROM THE OUT-OF-STATE FATHER’S FAILURE TO RETURN THE CHILDREN; THE MAJORITY SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE STANDING ISSUE; THREE DISSENTERS ARGUED FAMILY COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION BECAUSE NO CUSTODY ORDER WAS IN PLACE (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

BECAUSE CLAIMANT SUFFERED PHYSICAL TRAUMA, TO RECOVER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES... THE CRITERIA FOR A COURT-OF-APPEALS REVIEW OF AN APPELLATE DIVISION’S...