New York Law Review

Tag: False Instrument

  • People v. Asaro, 94 N.Y.2d 792 (1999): Forgery Requires Falsely Making an Instrument

    People v. Asaro, 94 N.Y.2d 792 (1999)

    A person does not commit forgery when they sign their own name to an application, even if the application contains false information.

    Summary

    Vincent Asaro was convicted of forgery, criminal possession of a forged instrument, and offering a false instrument for filing for misrepresenting his date of birth on a driver’s license renewal application. The New York Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing the forgery and criminal possession charges. The Court held that because Asaro signed his own name and provided his own Social Security number, he did not “falsely make” the application, a necessary element of forgery. Furthermore, the license itself was genuine, even with false information, as the DMV was authorized to issue it.

    Facts

    Asaro completed a driver’s license renewal application, misrepresenting his date of birth. He signed the application with his own name and provided his correct Social Security number. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was authorized to issue driver’s licenses.

    Procedural History

    Asaro was convicted in the Supreme Court of forgery in the second degree, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed this conviction. Asaro appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the act of signing one’s own name to an application containing false information constitutes forgery in the second degree under Penal Law § 170.10(2)?

    2. Whether a driver’s license containing false information, but issued by the authorized Department of Motor Vehicles, constitutes a forged instrument for the purposes of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree under Penal Law § 170.25?

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant signed his own name and provided his own Social Security number; therefore, he did not “falsely make” the application as required for a forgery conviction.

    2. No, because the Department of Motor Vehicles was authorized to issue the license, and the false information did not affect the genuineness of the document.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals focused on the element of “falsely make” within the definition of forgery. The court referenced People v. Johnson, stating that signing one’s own name does not constitute falsely making an instrument, even if the content is false. The court reasoned that Asaro represented himself accurately and truthfully as Vincent Asaro and did not falsely claim to be another person. The court distinguished the act of providing false information from the act of creating a false instrument. The Court also cited People v. Cannarozzo, which held that a document issued by an authorized entity does not become a forged instrument simply because it contains false information. The genuineness of the document, stemming from the DMV’s authorization, was the key factor. The court emphasized that the DMV was authorized to issue Asaro the license. Even though that license contained false information (the incorrect birthdate), the false information did not transform the otherwise genuine document into a forgery. To hold otherwise would potentially criminalize a wide range of actions where individuals provide false information to authorized entities, which was not the intent of the forgery statutes. The Court stated that to be a forged instrument, the license would have to be made without authorization, not merely contain false information supplied by the licensee.

  • People v. Ford, 73 N.Y.2d 905 (1989): Public Benefit Corporations and Intent to Defraud the State

    People v. Ford, 73 N.Y.2d 905 (1989)

    A public benefit corporation is not automatically considered “the state or any political subdivision thereof” under Penal Law § 175.35, and a conviction for offering a false instrument for filing requires proof of intent to defraud the State itself, not merely the public benefit corporation.

    Summary

    Ford, an assistant train conductor for Metro-North, was convicted of petit larceny and offering a false instrument for filing after submitting fraudulent time sheets. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for offering a false instrument, holding that Metro-North, a public benefit subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, is not automatically equivalent to “the state or any political subdivision thereof” under Penal Law § 175.35. The Court emphasized that the statute requires proof of intent to defraud the State, not just the corporation. The petit larceny conviction was upheld because the defense was not prejudiced by the late notice of the lesser included offense.

    Facts

    Defendant Ford worked as an assistant train conductor for Metro-North, a commuter railroad. He was indicted on multiple counts of grand larceny and offering a false instrument for filing. The indictment alleged that Ford stole money from Metro-North by submitting false time sheets indicating he worked more hours than he actually did. The time sheets were submitted on 10 separate occasions.

    Procedural History

    The trial court charged petit larceny as a lesser included offense of grand larceny. The jury convicted Ford of petit larceny and one count of offering a false instrument for filing. Ford appealed, arguing that Metro-North is not “the state or any political subdivision thereof” under Penal Law § 175.35, and that the petit larceny conviction should be overturned due to lack of notice. The Appellate Division affirmed. The case then went to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Metro-North, a public benefit subsidiary corporation of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, can be considered “the state or any political subdivision thereof” for the purposes of Penal Law § 175.35.
    2. Whether the trial court’s failure to inform counsel prior to summations that it intended to submit petit larceny as a lesser included offense requires reversal of the petit larceny conviction.

    Holding

    1. No, because public benefit corporations are not automatically considered the same as the State or its political subdivisions, and the statute requires proof of intent to defraud the State.
    2. No, because the error was harmless as the defense summation focused on a different charge and was not prejudiced by the lack of notice.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that public benefit corporations are not identical to the State and are only treated as such for specific purposes, requiring a particularized inquiry. The Court noted, “Only conduct that falls within the plain, natural meaning of the language of a Penal Law provision may be punished as criminal.” Because public benefit corporations are not invariably treated as the State, they do not fall within the plain meaning of “state or any political subdivision thereof” in Penal Law § 175.35. The Court further emphasized that Metro-North was acting as a private employer when accepting the fraudulent time sheets, not as an agent of the sovereign. The court stated that criminal statutes must afford fair warning, and absent clear language, section 175.35 does not provide adequate notice that filing a false instrument with Metro-North constitutes defrauding the State. Therefore, the People had to prove the defendant intended to defraud the State itself, not just Metro-North. Regarding the petit larceny conviction, the Court found any error in failing to timely apprise counsel of the charge harmless because the defense summation focused exclusively on the charge of offering a false instrument and was not prejudiced because the elements of grand larceny and petit larceny were the same except for the value of property stolen.