People v. Koenig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Koenig

181 A.D.2d 747, 581 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3297

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 9, 1992·Published

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered June 26, 1991, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (20 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the indictment counts which charged him with offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree were not "duplicitous” inasmuch as they each alleged only one criminal offense (see, CPL 200.30; People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321, 329; People v Heinzelman, 170 AD2d 841). Nor were the foregoing counts "duplicitous” because there were two factual predicates for each. " 'Where an offense may be committed by doing any one of several things, the indictment may, in a single count, group them together and charge the defendant with having committed them all, and a conviction may be had on proof of the commission of any one of the things, without proof of the commission of the others’ ” (People v Charles, supra, at 327-328, quoting from [748]*748People v Nicholas, 35 AD2d 18, 20). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered June 26, 1991, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (20 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the indictment counts which charged him with offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree were not "duplicitous” inasmuch as they each alleged only one criminal offense (see, CPL 200.30; People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321, 329; People v Heinzelman, 170 AD2d 841). Nor were the foregoing counts "duplicitous” because there were two factual predicates for each. " 'Where an offense may be committed by doing any one of several things, the indictment may, in a single count, group them together and charge the defendant with having committed them all, and a conviction may be had on proof of the commission of any one of the things, without proof of the commission of the others’ ” (People v Charles, supra, at 327-328, quoting from [748]*748People v Nicholas, 35 AD2d 18, 20). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

People v. Koenig, 181 A.D.2d 747, 581 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

181 A.D.2d 747 (People v. Koenig) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related