NY High Court Hears Arguments on What Evidence Is Required to Establish ID Theft
The state's Court of Appeals on Thursday heard oral arguments in a pair of cases concerning what evidence is necessary to establish identity theft.
March 22, 2018 at 05:18 PM
4 minute read
ALBANY — The state's Court of Appeals on Thursday heard oral arguments in a pair of cases concerning what evidence is necessary to establish identity theft.
The Appellate Division, First Department in 2016 reversed an identity theft conviction against Kerri Roberts for insufficient evidence. Roberts was arrested after he attempted to use a forged credit card in 2011. The card Roberts used had a valid account number but bore a fictitious name, Craig Jonathan. Roberts also had a forged driver's license with his photo and Jonathan's name.
Roberts was convicted of second-degree identity theft and two counts of possession of a forged instrument, for which he was sentenced to three to six years in prison. The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the identity-theft conviction because, it said, the use of personal identifying information alone is insufficient.
“Rather, the People must show that the defendant both used the victim's personal identifying information and assumed the victim's identity. Here, while the proof was clear that defendant used the personal identifying information of the victim … there was no proof that he assumed the [victim's] identity. Instead, he assumed the identity of a fictitious person.”
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office appealed the case, People v. Roberts, No. 42, to the state's highest court. In a brief filed in last March, attorneys for the district attorney's office said that the evidence at trial “provided the jury with a legally sufficient basis to conclude that [the] defendant” assumed someone else's identity by using someone else's personal information.
“The Appellate Division's interpretation of the identity theft law is at odds with the intent of the Legislature … legislative history, concurrent enactments, and [the] problem that prompted passage of the legislation. From those sources, it is apparent that the Legislature understood that a defendant can assume his victim's identity without having to trick another person into believing that he is the victim,” wrote Assistant District Attorney Philip Morrow.
Roberts' attorney, John Vang of the Center for Appellate Litigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Penal Law §§190.79 and 190.80, both felonies, state that a defendant knowingly, and with intent to defraud, assumes the identity of another person by presenting him or herself as that other person, by acting as that other person, or by using the personal identifying information of that person to commit a crime. Because Roberts did not actually assume the identity of the victim, there was a gray area.
The court also heard arguments in People v. Rush, No. 43, in which a woman was accused of assuming the identity of another person, identified as S.L., by using his name to deposit forged checks into a fraudulent bank account that had been opened in his name by an unidentified man at a Rochester-area bank without S.L.'s knowledge. Terri Rush was convicted of first-degree identity theft and possession of a forged instrument for which she was sentenced to five years of probation.
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed the conviction, saying that the defendant's contention that the phrase “assumes the identity of another person” is a discrete element that has to be proved incorrect based on a previous ruling by the court.
Rush, who is being represented by Deena Mueller-Funke, an associate at Buffalo-based Phillips Lytle, and Monroe County Public Defender Timothy Donaher, appealed the Appellate Division's decision, arguing that she did not assume anyone's identity when she deposited the fraudulent check.
In a brief filed by Rush's lawyers in November, they argue that the Court of Appeals should reverse Rush's conviction, and find that assuming someone's identity is a separate element that needs to be established in order to prove the crime of identity theft under the law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCaught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
8 minute readGift and Estate Tax Opportunities and Potential Traps in 2025 for Our New York High Net Worth Clients
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250