TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Filacouris

The People of the State of Newt York v. James Filacouris and Irene Filacouris

People v. Filacouris, 745 N.E.2d 378 (N.Y. 2000)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 14, 2000
Citations
745 N.E.2d 37895 N.Y.2d 940722 N.Y.S.2d 4592000 N.Y. LEXIS 3808

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendants underreported the amount of liquor they sold, over a four-year period, at their family store in Long Island. As a result, they collected over $200,000 in sales taxes that they did not remit to the State. Each defendant was convicted of 15 *942 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35) arising out of the submission of false tax returns, one count of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.40 [1]), and one count of filing a false sales and compensating use tax return (Tax Law § 1817 [b] [1]). The Appellate Division modified the judgment by dismissing each defendant’s conviction on the Tax Law count, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendants contend that the jury verdict convicting them of offering a false instrument for filing, and acquitting them of several Tax Law counts of filing false sales and compensating use tax returns, is repugnant. Their claim is meritless. Since the jury could have found that defendants offered the false returns for filing but did not “make[] and subscribe [ ]” them (Tax Law § 1817 [b] [1]), defendants’ acquittal of the Tax Law counts was not “conclusive as to a necessary element” of the offering a false instrument for filing charges (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7 ).

The People have not cross-appealed. Therefore, the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the one Tax Law violation of which defendants were convicted is not before us.

Defendants’ remaining contentions are unpreserved.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Orders affirmed in a memorandum.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
2001: 12002: 12004: 12005: 12006: 12007: 12009: 12011: 12018: 12019: 120012026peak 2001 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wilson v. Mazzuca570 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2009)
  2. People v. Butler27 A.D.3d 365 (2006)
  3. People v. Wells16 A.D.3d 174 (2005)
  4. People v. Campbell7 A.D.3d 409 (2004)
  5. People v. Harmon293 A.D.2d 303 (2002)
  6. People v. Wine89 A.D.3d 465 (2011)

Most recent

  1. People v. Jackson2019 NY Slip Op 203
  2. People v. Cheeseboro2018 NY Slip Op 4496
  3. People v. Wine89 A.D.3d 465 (2011)
  4. Wilson v. Mazzuca570 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2009)
  5. People v. Santana40 A.D.3d 230 (2007)
  6. People v. Butler27 A.D.3d 365 (2006)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Tucker, 431 N.E.2d 617 (N.Y. 1981) 510

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list