Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James PETTUS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered October 20, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of forgery in the second degree and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant applied for food stamp benefits under his own name and two names that he had assumed. He was properly convicted of forgery in the second degree because, although there is no evidence that the two assumed names were names of actual persons distinct from him, defendant's use of the assumed names to file three separate applications was “accompanied by a fraudulent design” to gain three times the benefits to which he was entitled (People v. Briggins, 50 N.Y.2d 302, 307, 428 N.Y.S.2d 909, 406 N.E.2d 766 [1980]; see e.g. People v. Williams, 265 A.D.2d 826, 695 N.Y.S.2d 817 [1999], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 868, 704 N.Y.S.2d 544, 725 N.E.2d 1106 [1999]; People v. Tagliamonte, 78 A.D.2d 565, 431 N.Y.S.2d 738 [1980]; Matter of Neuwirth, 39 A.D.2d 365, 368, 334 N.Y.S.2d 206 [1972] ).
Defendant was properly convicted of offering a false instrument for filing because his use of assumed names, different addresses, and different Social Security numbers on two food stamp applications constituted false statements or information within the meaning of Penal Law § 175.35, and evinced defendant's knowledge that the applications contained such false recitals and his intent to defraud.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 28, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)