People v. Grago
| Decision Date | 31 August 1960 |
| Citation | 24 Misc.2d 739,204 N.Y.S.2d 774 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Angelo GRAGO, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Evans, Pirnie & Burdick, Utica, for Federal Ins. Co. (L. W. Burdick, Utica, of counsel); in support of motion.
Dominick J. Parry, Rome, for Local No. 2, M.E.S.A.-C.I.O., in opposition.
Stephen Pawlinga, Utica, for defendant Angelo Grago.
This motion appears to be a novel one of apparent first impression.
In October, 1959, the Grand Jury of Oneida County presented an indictment accusing the defendant of grand larceny on the ground that having in his possession as secretary-treasurer of Local No. 2, M.E.S.A.-C.I.O., he appropriated to his own use funds owned by said Local No. 2, M.E.S.A.-C.I.O. the following amounts on the following dates:
First Count - August 12, 1958 $1,386.00
Second Count - November 21, 1958 1,925.50
Third Count - November 5, 1958 396.00
Fourth Count - February 4, 1959 413.00
Fifth Count - February 3, 1959 657.00
---------
Total ..... $4,777.50
On March 2, 1960, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to all five counts and on April 29, 1960 was sentenced to concurrent terms of five to ten years on three counts of Grand Larceny 1st and passing of sentence was suspended on the remaining two counts. The execution of the sentences on each count was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years conditioned upon making restitution to Local No. 2 M.E.S.A. in the amount of $4,700. This restitution has not yet been made.
Thereafter, and in June, 1960 Local No. 2 M.E.S.A. brought an action against the Oneida National Bank and Trust Company for the sum of $4,120.50 based upon the deposit without authority of said union by said Angelo Grago in his personal account at said Bank and at the Rome Trust Company (which has been merged into said bank) of certain checks made payable to the said union, and alleging that the dates and amounts of said deposits were as follows:
August 12, 1958 - $1,386.00
November 5, 1958 - 396.00
November 21, 1958 - 1,925.50
February 4, 1959 - 413.00
Total: $4,120.50
In settlement of that action the Oneida National Bank in July 1960 paid the sum of $4,000 to Local No. 2. It is claimed that the $4,000 was paid to the bank by the Federal Insurance Company under a contract with the bank and the said bank has assigned in writing to the Insurance Company all rights of said bank in connection with said payment, and all of its rights against said union and Grago.
The Federal Insurance Company now asks that this court make a further order in the criminal proceeding amending and supplementing its original order of restitution to provide that said restitution payment, to the extent of $4,000 thereof, be made to the Federal Insurance Company in the place and stead of said Local No. 2.
In the absence of statutory provision, it appears that the criminal courts have no power of reparation or restitution. In this State, Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
'After a plea * * * of guilty, in a case where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, and where there appear to be circumstances in mitigation of the punishment the court shall have power, in its discretion, to place the defendant on probation in the manner following: * * *
* * *. Two interesting questions come to mind. Is the Federal Insurance Company 'the aggrieved party or parties'? What are the losses or damages caused by the defendant's crime?
It is clear that the court was limited in fixing restitution to the amount charged in the indictment, to which defendant pleaded. People v. Funk, 117 Misc. 778, 193 N.Y.S. 302. The petitioner claims that since it has made its settlement on behalf of the bank on the same amounts that are charged in four of the counts of the indictment, the court is not being asked to order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...payment to the insurer in an arson case without any contention being made that it was not the immediate victim. (Cf. People v. Grago (1960) 24 Misc.2d 739, 204 N.Y.S.2d 774.) This would appear to be consistent with the broad language of the statute which provides that 'The court may impose ......
-
People v. Deadmond, 82SA367
...sustained loss because of defendant's criminal conduct. Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 155, 438 A.2d 490 (1981); 11 People v. Grago, 24 Misc.2d 739, 204 N.Y.S.2d 774 (1960); State v. Stalheim, 275 Or. 683, 552 P.2d 829 (1976); 12 Commonwealth v. Galloway, 302 Pa.Super. 145, 448 A.2d 568 (1982......
-
State v. Ferguson
...whose rights, personal or property, were invaded by the defendant * * *.’ ” Id. at 376, 542 P.2d 913 (quoting People v. Grago, 24 Misc.2d 739, 204 N.Y.S.2d 774, 777 (Co.Ct.1960)). The New York court had held that “aggrieved party” did not include the insurer of a bank that had repaid funds ......
-
State v. Yost
...property, were invaded by the defendant as a result of which criminal proceedings were successfully concluded.' People v. Grago, 24 Misc.2d 739, 204 N.Y.S.2d 774 (Cty.Ct.1960). Accord : United States v. Clovis Retail Liquor Dealers, 540 F.2d 1389 (10th Cir.1976); Karrell v. United States, 1......