TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Powell & Doven Realty Corp.

The People of the State of New York v. Richard I. Powell and Doven Realty Corp.

People v. Powell & Doven Realty Corp., 22 A.D.2d 959 (1964)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 31, 1964
Citations
22 A.D.2d 959256 N.Y.S.2d 1171964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2399

Opinion of the Court

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

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 6, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting them of grand larceny in the first degree and of the violation of section 932 of the Penal Law, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted. The first count of the indictment charged defendants with the crime of grand larceny in the first degree, in that they stole $25,500 from the complainants by means of false and fraudulent representations that a certain house was constructed in accordance with the filed plans and specifications therefor and in accordance with the applicable law, rules and regulations. The second count charged defendants with the crime of obtaining property'by false pretenses in violation of section 932 of the Penal Law, in that, by means of the same false representations, they obtained complainants’ signatures to an agreement for an extension of mortgage. Defendants were found guilty on both counts of the indictment. The indictment arose out of the sale to complainants by defendant corporation of a two-family house at a price of $26,500. The individual defendant was an officer and stockholder of defendant corporation. Coneededly, and to defendants’ knowledge, the house did not conform with the plans and specifications, in that a certain area drain which, under the plans was required to be connected to a dry well, was connected instead to the sanitary sewer in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of Hew York. There was also proof, which could be accepted by the jury, that the individual defendant made the misrepresentations alleged in the indictment. We are of the opinion, nevertheless, that reversal and a new trial are required because of the trial court’s failure adequately to instruct the jury that the false representations must have been made with the criminal intent to defraud. Such intent is an essential element of both the crime of larceny by false pretenses (cf. People v. Kirkup, 4 N Y 2d 209, 213; People v. Whitney, 146 App. Div. 98, 100 ) and the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses in violation of section 932 of the Penal Law (cf. People v. Pierce, 218 App. Div. 254 ; Brown v. People, 16 Hun 535 , 537). We are also of the opinion that, in any event, with respect to the conviction upon the first count of the indictment, reversal of the judgment as to such conviction is required because of the People’s failure to establish the value of the property out of which complainants were defrauded, as charged in that count. To constitute larceny, the *960 property taken must be of some value (cf. People v. Otis, 235 N. Y. 421, 423 ; People v. Malatek, 2 AD 2d 683 ) ; and, under the circumstances of this case, it is our view that the People were required to show that the .house purchased by complainants, as burdened by the illegal drain connection, had a value which was less than the amount they had paid for it. That difference would be the value of the property which was the subject of the larceny alleged; and there was no proof from which such value could be determined. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1974: 11978: 11980: 11994: 219742026peak 1994 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. New York v. Sokol (In re Sokol)170 B.R. 556 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994)
  2. Camelot Group, Ltd. v. W. A. Krueger Co.486 F. Supp. 1221 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)
  3. People v. Vanguard Meter Service, Inc.160 Misc. 2d 685 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994)
  4. Barry v. Commissioner1978 T.C. Memo. 215
  5. Dembner v. Commissioner1974 T.C. Memo. 180

Most recent

  1. New York v. Sokol (In re Sokol)170 B.R. 556 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994)
  2. People v. Vanguard Meter Service, Inc.160 Misc. 2d 685 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994)
  3. Camelot Group, Ltd. v. W. A. Krueger Co.486 F. Supp. 1221 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)
  4. Barry v. Commissioner1978 T.C. Memo. 215
  5. Dembner v. Commissioner1974 T.C. Memo. 180

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Otis, 139 N.E. 562 (N.Y. 1923) 25
People v. Whitney, 146 A.D. 98 (1911) 5
People v. Pierce, 218 A.D. 254 (1926) 3
People v. Malatek, 2 A.D.2d 683 (1956) 1

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