People v. Boothe
| Decision Date | 03 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | 2011.,Feb. 24 |
| Citation | 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 01365,944 N.E.2d 1137,16 N.Y.3d 195,919 N.Y.S.2d 498 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant,v.James O. BOOTHE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Hannah Stith Long, Barbara D. Underwood and Roseann B. MacKechnie of counsel), for appellant.Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, P.C., New York City (Paul Shechtman and Daniel V. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant, the chief operating officer and executive vice-president of a managed health care provider, was indicted on charges that included two counts of insurance fraud in the first degree (Penal Law § 176.30). A person is guilty of that offense “when he commits a fraudulent insurance act and thereby wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds, or attempts to wrongfully take, obtain or withhold property with a value in excess of one million dollars” (emphasis supplied). The indictment charges that defendant committed “fraudulent insurance act[s]” in 2003 when he submitted marketing plans to Medicaid that he knew contained materially false information.
[919 N.Y.S.2d 499 , 944 N.E.2d 1138]
As relevant here, Penal Law § 176.05(1) provides that a person commits a “fraudulent insurance act” when he:
“knowingly and with intent to defraud presents ... any written statement as part of, or in support of, an application for the issuance of, or the rating of a commercial insurance policy, ... or a claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy ... for commercial or personal insurance which he knows to: (i) contain materially false information concerning any fact material thereto.”
Prior to 1998, the above was the only definition contained in section 176.05, which is entitled “Insurance fraud; defined.” In 1998, however, the Legislature amended a number of state laws to expand health coverage and eligibility for children through the Child Health Plus program and Medicaid, and concomitantly amended the Penal Law to “strengthen[ ] the State's ability to deter Medicaid fraud and abuse” (Budget Report on Bills, Bill Jacket, L. 1998, ch. 2, at 3). As part of these amendments, the Legislature added a new subdivision to section 176.05, namely, “fraudulent health care insurance act” which, as relevant here, a person commits when he:
“knowingly and with intent to defraud, presents ... any written statement ... as part of, or in support of, an application for the issuance of a health insurance policy, or a policy or contract or other authorization that provides or allows coverage for, membership or enrollment in, or other services of a public or private health plan, or a claim for payment, services or other benefit pursuant to such policy, contract or plan, which he knows to:
“(a) contain materially false information concerning any material fact thereto” (Penal Law § 176.05[2] [emphasis supplied] ).
While amending section 176.05 in this fashion, the Legislature failed to amend the substantive offense provisions to include a “fraudulent health care insurance act.” Specifically, Penal Law §§ 176.10 through 176.35—which describe six degrees of insurance fraud—all contain the core requirement that the defendant “commit[ ] a fraudulent insurance act.” At the time, the State Division of Criminal Justice Services warned that the proposed amendments to section 176.05 “may not accomplish their apparent objective of including certain activities related to health care insurance within the scope of existing insurance fraud offenses” because the new legislation did not include “fraudulent health care insurance act” as an alternative means of committing the crimes spelled out in sections 176.10 through 176.35 ().
In the case before us, defendant, noting these deficiencies, moved to dismiss the insurance fraud counts, asserting that he did not commit a “fraudulent insurance act” as charged in the indictment and defined by the Penal Law. As relevant to this appeal, Supreme Court granted defendant's motion and the Appellate Division affirmed (68 A.D.3d 402, 890 N.Y.S.2d 484 [2009] ). A Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal, and we now affirm.
A “fraudulent insurance act,” as defined by statute, is limited to certain defined commercial and personal insurance. In fact, the People concede that the marketing plans allegedly submitted by defendant do not fall under this definition. Rather, they argue that a “fraudulent health care insurance act” (emphasis supplied) is a “species” of “fraudulent insurance act,” and that section 176.05(2) can be read as specifying an expanded set of “fraudulent
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Boothe
-
East Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Sandpebble Builders Inc.
...did not err in failing to direct that plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint as the record affords no basis to conclude [944 N.E.2d 1137 , 919 N.Y.S.2d 498] that the deficiency could have been cured by repleading. [16 N.Y.3d 777] Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO......