People v. Gottlieb

Decision Date09 June 1975
Citation36 N.Y.2d 629,370 N.Y.S.2d 884,331 N.E.2d 670
Parties, 331 N.E.2d 670 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gilbert GOTTLIEB and 220 Crescent, Inc., Appellants.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Irving Anolik, New York City, for appellants.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. (James M. Rose and Janet Cunard, White Plains, of counsel), for respondent.

GABRIELLI, Judge.

By a divided court, the Appellate Division has affirmed defendants' convictions of the crime of offering a false instrument for filing, in the first degree, in violation of section 175.35 of the Penal Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 40. The writing or instrument involved is an 'Application For Certificate of Occupancy' which was submitted to the Building Department of the City of Yonkers in connection with an apartment complex.

In the context in which this case reaches us and for the purposes of this appeal, we may assume that the application contained false information and, thus, we then approach the basic and sole issue, viz. whether the application for a certificate of occupancy is a 'written instrument' within the meaning of section 175.35 of the Penal Law which provides that: 'A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision thereof, he offers or presents it to a public office of public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant'.

Addressing ourselves to the legislative intent in enacting this statute, we first examine the predecessor statute, section 2051 of the Penal Law, enacted in 1909 which provided that: 'A person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed or registered or recorded under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony'. It will be readily observed that this predecessor statute was broader in scope than the Penal Law provision now under scrutiny. While similarly intended in most respects, the new statute is more limited, however, in its applicability to 'false instruments' and not to 'forged instruments' as provided in the Penal Law provision (§ 2051) it replaced. 1

Obviously, if the writing in the case before us is not an 'instrument' within the contemplation of section 175.35 of the revised Penal Law, the conviction may not be sustained. In reaching the conclusion that the writing here involved is not an 'instrument' within the intendment of this section, we are further persuaded by the rationale and holding of this court in People v. Sansanese, 17 N.Y.2d 302, 270 N.Y.S.2d 607, 217 N.E.2d 660 wherein the critical issue presented was the definition of that term as used and intended under the broader provisions of the predecessor statute (Penal Law § 2051). In holding that the filing of a false application for an operator's license with the State Department of Motor Vehicles could not be deemed a violation of that section, as a matter of law, since the application was not an instrument as used therein, this court stated that although the nature of the statute was all-encompassing, it 'must be read * * * in the light of the extremely narrow construction which the term 'instrument' has been otherwise given. An instrument has been defined as a 'formal or legal document in writing, such as a contract, deed, will, bond, or lease' (Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1951, p. 941)), and as a 'legal document (as a deed, will * * *) evidencing legal rights or duties, esp. of one party to another' (Webster, Third New Int. Dictionary (1961), p. 1172). While on the one hand we must not be overly technical in interpreting penal provisions, on the other hand 'Penal responsibility * * * cannot be extended beyond the fair scope of the statutory mandate'. (People v. Wood, 8 N.Y.2d 48, 51, 201 N.Y.S.2d 328, 331, 167 N.E.2d 736 (1960); Penal Law, § 21.)' (17 N.Y.2d, at p. 306, 270 N.Y.S.2d, at p. 610, 217 N.E.2d, at p. 662.)

The exclusion there adopted applies with equal or even greater force to the writing in the present case and the statutory proscription now before us.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • People v. P.J. Video, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1986
    ...that criminal responsibility cannot be extended beyond the fair scope of the relevant penal statute (see, People v. Gottlieb, 36 N.Y.2d 629, 632, 370 N.Y.S.2d 884, 331 N.E.2d 670). Additionally, a warrant to search and seize cannot issue absent a magistrate's careful consideration of the el......
  • People v. Jennings
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 1986
    ...view that criminal liability " ' "cannot be extended beyond the fair scope of the statutory mandate" ' " (People v. Gottlieb, 36 N.Y.2d 629, 632, 370 N.Y.S.2d 884, 331 N.E.2d 670), we hold that in these circumstances the statute must be read to apply only to a taking of the property itself ......
  • People v. Kirk
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 30, 1985
    ...the advantage or disadvantage of some person." The definition has been recognized as a very broad one (see, People v. Gottlieb, 36 N.Y.2d 629, 632, 370 N.Y.S.2d 884, 331 N.E.2d 670), and thus the crime of forgery has been held to encompass both falsified mail-order subscriptions (People v. ......
  • People v. Hodges
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 22, 1998
    ...covers every kind of document or other item deemed susceptible of deceitful use as a forged instrument (see, People v. Gottlieb, 36 N.Y.2d 629, 632, 370 N.Y.S.2d 884, 331 N.E.2d 670; People v. Kirk, 115 A.D.2d 758, 497 N.Y.S.2d 139, affd. 68 N.Y.2d 722, 506 N.Y.S.2d 333, 497 N.E.2d 700). Pe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT