People v. Termini, 72 N.Y.2d 1009 (1988)
In a larceny by false pretenses case against a bank, reliance can be established by showing that a bank employee involved in the loan process was induced by the defendant’s misrepresentations to recommend the loan, even if that employee did not have final approval authority.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of larceny by false pretenses for obtaining loans from several banks through intentional false statements about his financial status. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the element of reliance, necessary for larceny by false pretenses, can be established by showing that bank employees involved in the loan application and approval process relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations in recommending the loan, even if they did not have the final authority to approve the loan. This decision clarifies the scope of reliance required when the victim of the larceny is a corporate entity like a bank.
Facts
The defendant, Termini, obtained eleven loans from six different banks. He was subsequently convicted of larceny by false pretenses. The prosecution argued that Termini made intentional false statements concerning his financial status when applying for these loans. Bank employees involved in the application and approval process testified that they relied on Termini’s false representations when recommending that the bank approve his loan requests.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of larceny by false pretenses at the trial court level. He appealed the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to adequately establish the element of reliance, specifically claiming that the bank agents who relied on his misrepresentations did not have the authority to grant final loan approval. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether, in a larceny by false pretenses case where the victim is a bank, the element of reliance can be established only by showing that the corporate agent with final loan approval authority was the one induced by the false representations, or whether it is sufficient to show that another agent involved in the transaction was induced to recommend the loan.
Holding
No, it is not necessary to show that the corporate agent with final loan approval authority was the one directly induced by the false representation. Yes, it is sufficient to show that an agent involved in the transaction was induced by the defendant’s misrepresentations to recommend that the bank authorize the loan because such reliance contributes to the ultimate decision to grant the loan.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that reliance could only be established by demonstrating that the bank employee with final loan approval relied on the false pretenses. The court reasoned that proving reliance only requires showing that an agent involved in the loan transaction was induced by the defendant’s misrepresentations to recommend that the bank authorize the loan. The court highlighted the practical realities of corporate decision-making, stating that recommendations from employees involved in the loan process contribute to the bank’s ultimate decision. The court cited People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 362, emphasizing that larceny by false pretenses requires obtaining property through an intentional false statement concerning a material fact upon which the victim relied. The court found sufficient evidence that bank employees relied on Termini’s misrepresentations in recommending loan approval, thus supporting the larceny conviction. The court did not explicitly discuss any dissenting or concurring opinions.