People v. Jennings

• Decision Date: 20 June 1985
• Citation: 111 A.D.2d 678,490 N.Y.S.2d 496
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John JENNINGS, Defendant-Respondent. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John JENNINGS, Angela Fiumefreddo, Defendants-Respondents. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. SENTRY ARMORED COURIER CORP., et al., Defendants-Respondents. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John FINNERTY, Defendant-Respondent. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John JENNINGS, Angela Fiumefreddo, Defendants-Respondents. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John JENNINGS, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 496

490 N.Y.S.2d 496

111 A.D.2d 678

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John JENNINGS, Defendant-Respondent.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John JENNINGS, Angela Fiumefreddo, Defendants-Respondents.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. SENTRY ARMORED COURIER CORP., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John FINNERTY, Defendant-Respondent.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John JENNINGS, Angela Fiumefreddo, Defendants-Respondents.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John JENNINGS, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

June 20, 1985.

P.D. Coddington, New York City, for appellant.

R.M. Cohn, New York City, K.P. Gilleece, White Plains, for defendant-respondent.

R.M. Cohn, F. Seiden, R.M. Asche, H. Kaufman, New York City, for defendants-respondents.

Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and ROSS, FEIN and ROSENBERGER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 21, 1984 dismissing the indictment for misapplication of property regarding repurchase agreements, against defendant John Finnerty is affirmed. (Indictment # 4380/83).

Orders of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 21, 1984 dismissing the consolidated indictments for grand larceny in the second degree regarding repurchase agreements, against defendants Sentry Armored Courier and Sentry Investigations and defendant Jennings is affirmed. (Indictment # 4379/83 and Indictment # 370/84).

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 21, 1984 dismissing the indictments for grand larceny in the second degree involving missing payroll and coins, against defendants Jennings, Angela Fiumefreddo and Sentry Armored Courier is affirmed. (Indictment # 640/83).

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 21, 1984 dismissing the indictments against defendants Jennings and Sentry Armored Courier for grand larceny in the second degree involving insurance proceeds is reversed and the indictments are reinstated. (Indictment # 638/83).

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 21, 1984 dismissing the indictments for grand larceny in the second degree and misappropriation of property involving the missing $100,000, against defendants Jennings and Fiumefreddo is reversed and the indictments are reinstated. (Indictment # 369/84). 123 Misc.2d 560, 474 N.Y.S.2d 392.

These indictments stem from an investigation conducted in the wake of the 1983 multi-million dollar theft at the Sentry Armored Courier Corporation (Sentry). This investigation led to the handing down of indictments against the principals of Sentry and several related individuals and entities. Most of these were dismissed in earlier proceedings, with leave to re-present to a grand jury. After they were re-presented and new indictments handed down, these also were dismissed. It is from this dismissal that the People appeal.

We reinstate the charge of Grand Larceny in the second degree (Indictment # 638/83), charging Jennings and Sentry Armored Courier with failing to pay out insurance proceeds to two companies it was required to reimburse. These two organizations lost money in a robbery of a Sentry armored car, which the insurance money was meant to defray. Inasmuch as Sentry received this money, it was supposed to distribute it.

The essence of the crime of * * * embezzlement is the conversion by the embezzler of property belonging to another which has been entrusted to the embezzler to hold on behalf of the owner (People v. Yannett, 49 N.Y.2d 296, 301, 425 N.Y.S.2d 300, 401 N.E.2d 410. See also People v. Valenza, 60 N.Y.2d 363, 368,...