From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 1994
203 A.D.2d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 18, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.).


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

On two separate occasions at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) located in Jamaica, New York, the defendant, pretending to have connections within the DMV, obtained fraudulent learner's permits for Lewis Inca and Francis Roberts in exchange for money. Before the defendant solicited them, Inca and Roberts, neither of whom were United States citizens, had both just been rejected by the window clerk due to insufficient identification documentation. Following an investigation of illegal activities at the DMV, the defendant was subsequently arrested. Both Inca and Roberts identified the defendant at trial and testified that they believed that the transactions and permits were valid.

As the People concede, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request to submit to the jury the question as to whether Inca and Roberts were accomplices of the defendant (see generally, People v Basch, 36 N.Y.2d 154, 157; People v Ortiz, 143 A.D.2d 851, 852; People v Tusa, 137 A.D.2d 151, 155; People v Crutchfield, 134 A.D.2d 508). However, this error was harmless in light of the jury's verdict which necessarily concluded that Inca and Roberts were not willing participants in the fraudulent scheme (see, e.g., People v Koopalethes, 166 A.D.2d 458).

Moreover, the trial court properly admitted the testimony of the DMV investigator, who observed the defendant on several occasions obtain documents for persons in exchange for money using the same modus operandi as in the charged crimes, as evidence of the defendant's intent to defraud his victims (see, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293; People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 369; People v Condon, 26 N.Y.2d 139, 144; People v Sanchez, 154 A.D.2d 15, 24).

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 1994
203 A.D.2d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Roman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDWIN ROMAN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 18, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
610 N.Y.S.2d 872

Citing Cases

People v. Yaldizian

Here, the facts are distinguishable. Defendant is alleged to have fraudulently billed insurance companies for…

People v. Yaldizian

Thus, this court considers each allegation as a separate and complete act which is not so related as to rise…