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.
Geoffrey M. SZYMANSKI and City of Lackawanna, Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Mohamed ALBANNA, Defendant–Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, Geoffrey M. Szymanski and the City of Lackawanna (City), commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that defendant, Mohamed Albanna, is ineligible to assume the City office of Councilman, 1st Ward. In 2006, defendant pleaded guilty to the federal crime of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business (18 USC § 1960), and he was sentenced to five years in prison and three years of probation. In 2017, defendant sought the City office of Councilman, 1st Ward and received a majority of votes.
Section 14.9 of the City Charter provides that “[a] person convicted of a crime or offense involving moral turpitude shall be ineligible to assume or continue in any City office, position or employment.” In his plea agreement, defendant acknowledged that he: operated an illegal money transmitting business that transmitted more than $3.5 million to Yemen over a 131/212-month period; transmitted money to Yemen from individuals who did not fully and accurately identify themselves; transmitted money to Yemen without inquiring about the source of the money or why it was being sent; made false entries in a money transfer ledger to hide the identities of certain senders and recipients; failed to file required currency transaction reports for cash transactions in excess of $10,000; and knew that his business did not have the required license to transmit money.
Because the above stipulated facts establish that defendant was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, Supreme Court properly declared that he is ineligible to assume the subject office (see Ernewein v. Pordum [appeal No. 1], 96 A.D.2d 1014, 1014 [4th Dept 1983], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 60 N.Y.2d 552 [1983] ). In light of our determination herein, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 167.1
Decided: January 22, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)