People v. Gabriel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gabriel

161 A.D.2d 1154, 555 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9143

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 11, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D.2d 1154 (People v. Gabriel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Gabriel, 161 A.D.2d 1154, 555 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for larceny by false promise. "The conclusion that defendant was engaged in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme is ines[1155]*1155capable” (People v Luongo, 47 NY2d 418, 428). Here, as in People v Luongo (supra) and in People v Blum (132 AD2d 933, lv denied 70 NY2d 702), defendant represented to his associates that the money they gave him would be invested and that they would receive extraordinarily high rates of interest; instead, he used funds received from subsequent investors to pay off his prior obligations.

We do not view defendant’s sentence as harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Dillon, J.—grand larceny, second degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for larceny by false promise. "The conclusion that defendant was engaged in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme is ines[1155]*1155capable” (People v Luongo, 47 NY2d 418, 428). Here, as in People v Luongo (supra) and in People v Blum (132 AD2d 933, lv denied 70 NY2d 702), defendant represented to his associates that the money they gave him would be invested and that they would receive extraordinarily high rates of interest; instead, he used funds received from subsequent investors to pay off his prior obligations.

We do not view defendant’s sentence as harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Dillon, J.—grand larceny, second degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 1154, 555 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gabriel-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack