People v. Simons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simons

264 A.D. 943, 36 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5446

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 943 (People v. Simons) 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. Simons, 264 A.D. 943, 36 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: The indictment accused defendant of grand larceny in the second degree for having obtained from one O’Connor the sum of $500 by falsely representing: First, that defendant “ could purchase for the said Michael O’Connor five thousand shares ” of a certain stock; and second, “ that he, the said Michael [944]*944O’Connor, could make a profit,” etc. The second statement, that a profit could be made, was not a statement of a presently existing fact; it was purely promissory. That part of the indictment does not even allege a crime. The first statement, that defendant could purchase for O’Connor the stated number of shares of the stock named, was clearly proven to be true by the People’s own evidence. All concur. (The judgment convicts defendant of the crime of grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: The indictment accused defendant of grand larceny in the second degree for having obtained from one O’Connor the sum of $500 by falsely representing: First, that defendant “ could purchase for the said Michael O’Connor five thousand shares ” of a certain stock; and second, “ that he, the said Michael [944]*944O’Connor, could make a profit,” etc. The second statement, that a profit could be made, was not a statement of a presently existing fact; it was purely promissory. That part of the indictment does not even allege a crime. The first statement, that defendant could purchase for O’Connor the stated number of shares of the stock named, was clearly proven to be true by the People’s own evidence. All concur. (The judgment convicts defendant of the crime of grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 943, 36 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simons-nyappdiv-1942.