| People v Lightbody |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04171 [62 AD3d 632] |
| May 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Junior Lightbody, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J.), rendered June 19, 2008,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of insurance fraud in the third degree, and sentencing himto a term of five years' probation, unanimously reversed, on the facts, and the indictmentdismissed.
The verdict to the extent it found that Bronx County was a proper venue was against theweight of the evidence (see People v Cullen, 50 NY2d 168, 173 [1980]). On April 5,2006, while in Queens County, defendant falsely reported to the police that his car had beenstolen. In making this report, defendant claimed he had parked his car in Queens the previousnight, and that was the last he saw of it. However, on April 3, two days before defendant madethe report, the car was found in the Bronx, having been destroyed by fire. All other eventsrelating to this case occurred in Queens, including defendant's making the report to the policeand his efforts to obtain reimbursement from his insurance company.
The People's theory of venue is that both the knowledge and fraudulent intent elements ofinsurance fraud (see Penal Law § 176.05 [1]) occurred in Bronx County. A personmay be convicted of an offense in an appropriate court of a county when "[c]onduct occurredwithin such county sufficient to establish . . . [a]n element of such offense" (CPL20.40 [1] [a]). Here, however, the evidence established that all the elements of thecrime—namely, defendant's knowledge of the falsity of his report, his intent to commitinsurance fraud, and the making of the false statements—occurred in Queens County, notthe Bronx. While it is reasonable to infer that defendant brought or caused his car to be broughtto the Bronx and burned, that conduct is not an element of insurance fraud; instead, it is part ofthe evidence establishing that defendant's claim was actually false.
With respect to geographical jurisdiction, the Court instructed the jury it had to find that boththe intent and the knowledge elements of insurance fraud—i.e., the intent and knowledgethat pertained to the knowing filing of a false insurance claim—had to occur in the Bronx;but the evidence demonstrated that defendant's intent was formed and his knowledge wasdeveloped while he was in Queens. Defendant's actions in relation to the car were notelements of insurance fraud. Therefore, as relevant to jurisdiction or venue, the elementsof the crime [*2]occurred in Queens (see People vCullen, 50 NY2d at 175; People v Leonard, 106 AD2d 470 [1984], lv denied64 NY2d 1020 [1985]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson and Freedman,JJ.