Opinion
2012-02-14
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. LINYAN ZOU, also known as Kevin You, also known as Tong Hui You, Defendant–Appellant.
Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., Flushing (Kevin K. Tung of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila O'Shea of counsel), for respondent.
Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., Flushing (Kevin K. Tung of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila O'Shea of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, CATTERSON, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J. at severance motion; Daniel Conviser, J. at nonjury trial and sentencing), rendered February 8, 2011, convicting defendant of scheme to defraud in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), criminal impersonation in the second degree, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts), and violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20–771 (eight counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of three to nine years, unanimously affirmed.
The court's verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We have considered and rejected defendant's sufficiency arguments concerning the elements of each of the crimes at issue. In particular, the evidence establishes that defendant operated a fraudulent immigration services business (Da Bure). Defendant obtained money in exchange for promised services that he knew he could not provide, and that he had no intention of providing. The evidence also established that, regardless of how the business was organized in corporate form, defendant was the central participant in the scheme and was criminally responsible for the fraudulent conduct. The People demonstrated the “common techniques, misrepresentations and omissions of material facts employed in all transactions” ( People v. First Meridian Planning Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 608, 616–617, 635 N.Y.S.2d 144, 658 N.E.2d 1017 [1995] ). Here, defendant and codefendant Chen used the same basic pattern of conduct with each of the clients addressed by the indictment. This included advertising that emphasized that Da Bure could expedite the process, representations of special relationships in the Chinese consulate as well as the USCIS, and fraudulent promises of quick results ( see People v. Deangelis, 186 A.D.2d 397, 588 N.Y.S.2d 549 [1992], lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 1026, 592 N.Y.S.2d 675, 607 N.E.2d 822 [1992]; see also People v. Burks, 254 A.D.2d 738, 739, 680 N.Y.S.2d 767 [1998] ).
Defendant abandoned his present severance argument ( see People v. Ortiz, 165 A.D.2d 675, 564 N.Y.S.2d 243 [1990], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 989, 563 N.Y.S.2d 778, 565 N.E.2d 527 [1990] ). In any event, the counts of the indictment were properly joined ( see CPL 200.20[2][b] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Defendant's constitutional challenge to his sentence is without merit.