People v. Bel Air Equipment Corp., 39 N.Y.2d 58 (1976)

A standard State voucher submitted for payment is considered an “instrument” under Penal Law § 175.35, when it is used to make a fraudulent claim against the state.

Summary

This case addresses whether a standard State voucher used to claim relocation expenses is an “instrument” under New York Penal Law § 175.35, which prohibits offering a false instrument for filing. Bel Air Equipment Corp. and its president were convicted of this crime for submitting a falsified bill to the State Department of Transportation through a claimant, Rossini. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the voucher, in effect a non-negotiable draft demanding payment, qualifies as an instrument because it was used in an attempt to defraud the state, the very mischief the statute aims to prevent.

Facts

Steve Rossini, whose business was displaced by state highway construction, was entitled to relocation expense reimbursement. The Department of Transportation required multiple bids for the moving services. James Macri, president of Bel Air Equipment Corp., submitted the lowest bid at $8,975, and was hired by Rossini. After the move, Macri instructed his project manager to create an itemized bill matching the bid amount, irrespective of actual costs. Rossini then submitted this bill, along with a standard State voucher, to the state for payment. State investigators, who had been monitoring the move, discovered substantial discrepancies between the submitted bill and the actual work performed.

Procedural History

Bel Air and Macri were indicted by the Grand Jury of Westchester County for attempted grand larceny, falsifying business records, and offering a false instrument for filing. They were convicted on all charges. The Appellate Division reversed the convictions for falsifying business records but affirmed the convictions for offering a false instrument for filing and attempted grand larceny. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a standard State voucher constitutes an “instrument” within the meaning of Penal Law § 175.35, when it is submitted to a public office as part of a fraudulent claim for payment.

Holding

Yes, because the State voucher functions as a non-negotiable draft demanding payment and was used in an attempt to defraud the state, which is the exact harm the statute aims to prevent. The voucher misrepresented obligations allegedly owed by the State.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that the definition of “instrument” is context-dependent and not rigidly defined. The purpose of § 175.35 is to protect against the possibility that state officers might act on false documents filed with them in the belief that the documents are accurate. The court distinguished this case from People v. Sansanese and People v. Gottlieb, where a driver’s license application and a certificate of occupancy application, respectively, were deemed not to be instruments. The critical factor is whether the document carries the potential to cause the mischief the statute seeks to prevent. Here, the State voucher was a demand for payment containing false claims; had the state paid it, it would have been defrauded. The court stated: “When a claim is made that a particular document is not an instrument within the meaning of the statutory prohibition, the character and contents of the document must be closely analyzed… [T]he court must not only ascertain whether the particular document falls within the literal scope of the statute but also whether the document is of a character that the mischief the statute seeks to prevent would ensue if the document were filed.” The court also held that the delivery of the vouchers to the Department of Transportation constituted a filing of the instrument, attributable to Macri and Bel Air, who intended to defraud the state.