New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Kim

  • People v. Kim, 91 N.Y.2d 214 (1997): Burden of Proof in Restitution Hearings

    People v. Kim, 91 N.Y.2d 214 (1997)

    In restitution hearings, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the victim’s out-of-pocket loss by a preponderance of the evidence, which includes demonstrating the amount taken from the victim, minus any benefit conferred by the defendant.

    Summary

    Kim, a contractor, was convicted of grand larceny for submitting false invoices to New York City. At the restitution hearing, the court determined the city’s out-of-pocket loss based on the face value of the falsified invoices, without fully considering the value of the work Kim actually performed. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution has the burden of proving the victim’s actual loss, which means deducting any benefit the victim received from the defendant’s actions. The case clarifies that restitution aims to compensate for actual loss, not provide unjust enrichment.

    Facts

    Defendant Kim, principal of Foundation Construction Consultants, contracted with New York City’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) for construction projects. Kim submitted payment requests with supporting invoices from subcontractors to receive payments. An investigation revealed that several invoices were falsified. The city paid Foundation approximately $2,700,000 between 1996 and 1998.

    Procedural History

    Kim pleaded guilty to grand larceny and falsifying business records. The Supreme Court sentenced him to 1 to 3 years for grand larceny and ordered restitution. At the restitution hearing, the court adopted the prosecution’s proposed restitution amount. The Appellate Division reversed, ordering a new hearing, finding that the burden of proof was improperly shifted to the defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, in a restitution hearing, the People bear the burden of proving the victim’s out-of-pocket loss, including subtracting any benefit conferred by the defendant to the victim.

    Holding

    Yes, because Penal Law § 60.27 and CPL 400.30(4) explicitly place the burden of proof on the People to demonstrate the victim’s actual out-of-pocket loss, accounting for any value or benefit conferred by the defendant.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that restitution is intended to compensate the victim for actual out-of-pocket losses, not to provide a windfall. It cited People v. Consalvo, stating that restitution is “the sum necessary to compensate the victim for out-of-pocket losses.” The court reasoned that this includes considering any benefit the victim received from the defendant, referencing Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney. The court relied on CPL 400.30 (4), which explicitly states: “At any hearing held pursuant to this section the burden of proof rests upon the people.” The Court noted that the prosecution reduced the face value of some invoices by the actual cost of services rendered by subcontractors but failed to do so for all invoices, even though the DCAS engineer certified completion of the work. The Court further noted that “the prosecution, in making a prima facie showing of the proper restitution amount was required to subtract from the face amount of the improper invoices the value of the benefit conferred in connection with the underlying projects.” The court held that the defendant should be permitted to offer evidence that the work reflected in the invoices was actually done, and that fair market value evidence of materials or services provided by the defendant is relevant. The Court acknowledged that legislative reform allowing courts discretion to place the burden of proving offsets on the defendant would be useful but that the current statute plainly places the burden on the prosecution.

  • People v. Kim, 91 N.Y.2d 407 (1998): Restitution to Insurers and Joint & Several Liability

    People v. Kim, 91 N.Y.2d 407 (1998)

    Under New York law, a crime victim’s insurer can be a recipient of restitution for medical expenses paid, and courts can impose joint and several liability for restitution on perpetrators of a crime.

    Summary

    Kim pleaded guilty to attempted murder, robbery, and weapons possession after shooting the victim during a failed robbery. The trial court ordered him to pay restitution for the victim’s medical expenses. Kim appealed, arguing that the court should have held a hearing on the restitution amount, that restitution cannot be ordered to reimburse the victim’s insurer, and that he should only be responsible for a portion of the total medical expenses, not the entire amount. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the restitution order, holding that no hearing was required because the presentence report provided sufficient evidence of the expenses, insurers can be considered victims for restitution purposes, and imposing joint and several liability is appropriate in such cases.

    Facts

    Defendant Kim and two accomplices attempted to rob the victim at his home. During the robbery, Kim shot the victim three times. The victim incurred $37,754.07 in medical expenses as a result of the shooting. The victim’s health insurer paid $35,301.35 of those expenses. Kim pleaded guilty to attempted murder, attempted robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon.

    Procedural History

    The County Court convicted Kim based on his guilty plea and sentenced him. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence. The New York Court of Appeals granted Kim leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing to determine the actual amount of the victim’s medical expenses before ordering restitution.
    2. Whether the trial court erred in ordering restitution to reimburse the victim’s health insurer for medical expenses it paid.
    3. Whether the trial court erred in imposing joint and several liability on Kim for the full amount of the victim’s medical expenses, rather than dividing the amount among Kim and his accomplices.

    Holding

    1. No, because the record contained sufficient evidence to support the finding of the amount of loss, and the defendant did not request a hearing.
    2. No, because the statute authorizes restitution for actual out-of-pocket loss, and includes a crime victim’s representative, which includes an insurer.
    3. No, because imposing joint and several liability is consistent with the purposes of restitution and with tort principles.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Regarding the hearing, the Court of Appeals noted that Penal Law § 60.27(2) mandates a hearing only if the record lacks sufficient evidence or if the defendant requests one. Here, the presentence report itemized the medical expenses, and Kim’s attorney conceded the accuracy of the amount. Thus, the court had a sufficient evidentiary basis. The court cited People v. Consalvo, 89 N.Y.2d 140, 145 (1996), stating that a defendant’s concessions may furnish the facts necessary to establish the amount of restitution.

    Addressing restitution to the insurer, the court pointed to Penal Law § 60.27(1), which authorizes restitution for “actual out-of-pocket loss caused” by the offense, and § 60.27(4)(b), which includes a crime victim’s “representative” as defined in Executive Law § 621(6). Executive Law § 621(6) defines representative broadly. The court cited People v. Hall-Wilson, 69 N.Y.2d 154, 157 (1986), emphasizing the legislative policy favoring restitution for all actual monetary losses caused by criminal conduct. The insurer, being legally obligated to pay the victim’s expenses, can be classified as a victim in its own right. The court referenced People v. Cruz, 81 N.Y.2d 996, 997-998 (1993) and People v. Hall-Wilson, 69 N.Y.2d 154, 157-158 (1986).

    On joint and several liability, the court observed the statute’s silence but stated that imposing such liability aligns with the goals of restitution: to make victims whole and to rehabilitate offenders. The court stated that requiring all defendants to take responsibility for the entire harm promotes these goals. The court cited People v. Hall-Wilson, 69 N.Y.2d 154, 157 (1986) and People v. Turco, 130 A.D.2d 785, 786 (2d Dept. 1987). Furthermore, the court noted the consistency with tort principles of liability for actors in concert.