People v. Asaro

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Asaro

721 N.E.2d 956, 94 N.Y.2d 792, 699 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3443

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 721 N.E.2d 956 (People v. Asaro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Asaro, 721 N.E.2d 956, 94 N.Y.2d 792, 699 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3443 (N.Y. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, by dismissing the counts of the indictment charging defendant with forgery in the second degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and remitting the case to Supreme Court for resentencing and, as modified, affirmed.

Following a jury trial defendant was convicted of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [2]), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35) in connection with a driver’s license renewal application form in which defendant misrepresented his date of birth.

The proof in this case is legally insufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [2]; see also, People v Johnson, 96 AD2d 1083, affd for reasons stated below 63 NY2d 888, rearg denied 64 NY2d 647; People v Briggins, 50 NY2d 302). In completing the application, defendant signed his own name, provided his own Social Security number, and did not represent himself to be anyone other than Vincent As aro. Thus defendant did not “falsely make” the application (see, People v Johnson, supra).

Furthermore, the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). The Department of Motor Vehicles was authorized to issue defendant the license and although the license contained false information, that did not affect the genuineness of the document for purposes of a prosecution under Penal Law § 170.10 (2) and § 170.25 (see, People v Cannarozzo, 62 AD2d 503, 504-506, affd for reasons stated below 48 NY2d 687).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

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

Order modified, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, by dismissing the counts of the indictment charging defendant with forgery in the second degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and remitting the case to Supreme Court for resentencing and, as modified, affirmed.

Following a jury trial defendant was convicted of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [2]), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35) in connection with a driver’s license renewal application form in which defendant misrepresented his date of birth.

The proof in this case is legally insufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [2]; see also, People v Johnson, 96 AD2d 1083, affd for reasons stated below 63 NY2d 888, rearg denied 64 NY2d 647; People v Briggins, 50 NY2d 302). In completing the application, defendant signed his own name, provided his own Social Security number, and did not represent himself to be anyone other than Vincent As aro. Thus defendant did not “falsely make” the application (see, People v Johnson, supra).

Furthermore, the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). The Department of Motor Vehicles was authorized to issue defendant the license and although the license contained false information, that did not affect the genuineness of the document for purposes of a prosecution under Penal Law § 170.10 (2) and § 170.25 (see, People v Cannarozzo, 62 AD2d 503, 504-506, affd for reasons stated below 48 NY2d 687).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

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

Order modified, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

721 N.E.2d 956, 94 N.Y.2d 792, 699 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-asaro-ny-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack