People v. Hunter, 34 N.Y.2d 432 (1974)

In welfare fraud cases, a conviction for grand larceny requires specific proof that the defendant received public assistance exceeding $250 to which they were not entitled, while a violation of the Social Services Law only requires proof that some assistance was fraudulently obtained, with statutory presumptions aiding in establishing deliberate concealment and materiality.

Summary

Thomas Hunter was convicted of grand larceny and violating the Social Services Law for failing to report income while receiving public assistance. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the larceny conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove Hunter received over $250 in benefits he wasn’t entitled to. The Court upheld the Social Services Law conviction, noting the statute’s presumption that concealing income constitutes deliberate concealment of a material fact, enabling receipt of benefits one is not entitled to. The case clarifies the distinct evidentiary burdens for larceny versus Social Services Law violations in welfare fraud.

Facts

Thomas Hunter received public assistance payments from July 1970 to February 1971. He was employed during this period but did not fully report his income to welfare officials. He was subsequently indicted for violating Section 145 of the Social Services Law, grand larceny in the second degree, and grand larceny in the third degree, based on allegations he fraudulently obtained welfare benefits by concealing his income. The second-degree grand larceny charge was dismissed at trial.

Procedural History

Hunter was convicted by a jury on the Social Services Law violation and grand larceny in the third degree. He was sentenced to one year in jail for larceny and fined $500 for the Social Services Law violation. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Hunter appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which granted leave to appeal and stayed execution of the sentence.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for grand larceny in the third degree, specifically proving that Hunter received public assistance exceeding $250 to which he was not entitled.
2. Whether the evidence presented at trial established the elements of a violation of Section 145 of the Social Services Law.

Holding

1. No, because the prosecution failed to provide specific evidence demonstrating that Hunter received more than $250 in public assistance benefits that he would not have been entitled to had he accurately reported his income.
2. Yes, because the prosecution established the elements of the Social Services Law violation, and the statutory presumption of deliberate concealment was not adequately rebutted.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that to prove grand larceny in the context of welfare fraud, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant received a specific value of public assistance exceeding $250 to which they were not entitled. The Court emphasized, “To sustain a conviction of grand larceny in the third degree on facts indicating public assistance fraud, the prosecution must present proof establishing that the defendant received public assistance to which he would not have been entitled had the Department of Social Services known the true facts, and further establishing that the specific value of this public assistance was in excess of $250.” The Court found the evidence lacking because, while there was testimony about how income affected benefits, no specific evidence showed the exact amount Hunter was overpaid due to his unreported income.

Regarding the Social Services Law violation, the Court emphasized the statute’s presumption that failure to report income, after cashing a public assistance check, constitutes “presumptive evidence of deliberate concealment of a material fact.” The court stated that the conditions necessary to trigger the presumption were established at trial: (1) Hunter received income; (2) he failed to notify the Social Services Department; and (3) he cashed a public assistance check after receiving the income. The burden then shifted to Hunter to rebut the presumption, which he failed to do adequately. The court noted, “The statutory presumption, if not rebutted, fulfills the materiality requirement since it provides that the concealment of ‘the receipt of money or property or income from any source whatsoever’ is the concealment of ‘a material fact’.”

The Court clarified that the Social Services Law only requires proof that some assistance was fraudulently obtained, whereas the larceny statute requires proof of a specific dollar amount exceeding $250. Because the larceny conviction was overturned, the condition that the conduct not constitute a violation of the Penal Law was satisfied, thus allowing the Social Services Law conviction to stand.