People v. Kramer
| Decision Date | 27 July 1987 |
| Citation | 132 A.D.2d 708,518 N.Y.S.2d 189 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stuart KRAMER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Schwartz & Di Blasi, Forest Hills (Barry A. Schwartz, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Nikki Kowalski and Tracy W. Young, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and RUBIN, KUNZEMAN and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), 132 Misc.2d 753, 505 N.Y.S.2d 769, rendered June 24, 1986, convicting him of insurance fraud in the first degree (six counts), grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law former § 155.30) (six counts), offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (eight counts), bribing a witness (two counts), criminal solicitation in the fourth degree (two counts), conspiracy in the fifth degree and violation of Judiciary Law § 482, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions of bribing a witness (two counts), vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment, and by vacating the sentences imposed on the grand larceny convictions; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing as to the grand larceny convictions.
The charges against the defendant were the culmination of a lengthy investigation instituted after the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts discovered widespread improprieties with respect to the defendant's law practice.
The investigation revealed, and the People's evidence at trial established, that the defendant had a network of "chasers" who referred automobile accident victims to his law office. In return, the defendant gave the chasers, who included tow truck operators and insurance brokers, $100 to $200 for each case they referred, depending upon the type of injury.
After the defendant interviewed the clients, he would determine the type of medical treatment the client would purportedly receive so as to meet the threshold for recovery under the New York no-fault insurance statute (Insurance Law § 5101 et seq.). The defendant had explained to his office manager that in order to maintain an action, there must be death, disfigurement, loss of an organ or bodily function, a fracture, or medical treatment for 90 out of 180 days. There were certain doctors and chiropractors who had agreed to supply the defendant with false diagnoses and to submit bills for fictitious visits so the threshold could be met. In particular, one radiologist, Dr. Carmona, would falsely diagnose a fracture, known in the defendant's office as a "Carmona fracture", for $100. In addition to the payments from the defendant, the doctors would be reimbursed by the insurance companies for their services.
After the defendant received the requisite medical information, or "special damages" it would be submitted to the insurance company for possible settlement. Representatives from various insurance companies testified that they relied upon the special damages in determining whether or not to settle a claim. For each of the cases for which the defendant was convicted of insurance fraud, the medical information was shown to be false.
Once the case was settled, the client would be notified to come into the office to sign the release and endorse the settlement check. The People established, through the use of the defendant's office files and closing statements, that he withheld more of the settlement proceeds than he was entitled to receive under the rules governing contingency fee cases.
The clients were always given less than the defendant indicated they had received on the closing statements he filed with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA). The defendant also misrepresented on the retainer agreements he was required to file with OCA the source of the referral for the client and the date on which he was retained.
Finally, the People presented evidence that the defendant, upon learning of the investigation into his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ribowsky
...principal of the firm, Kramer, has been convicted of various felonies and disbarred as a result of his conduct (see, People v. Kramer, 132 A.D.2d 708, 518 N.Y.S.2d 189, affd. 72 N.Y.2d 1003, 534 N.Y.S.2d 912, 531 N.E.2d 633; Matter of Kramer, 120 A.D.2d 299, 509 N.Y.S.2d 47). Several others......
-
U.S. v. Eisen
...shared that intent. See People v. Kramer, 132 Misc.2d 753, 505 N.Y.S.2d 769 (Sup.Ct.), modified on other grounds, 132 A.D.2d 708, 518 N.Y.S.2d 189 (2d Dep't 1986). The statute contains no requirement that the benefit actually be conferred or that the testimony actually be influenced. See Sh......
-
Quinn v. State
...1310 (Fla.1991); Bivens v. State, 586 So.2d 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Sec. 775.021(1), Fla.Stat. (1993).12 See People v. Kramer, 132 A.D.2d 708, 518 N.Y.S.2d 189 (N.Y.A.D.1987), affirmed, 72 N.Y.2d 1003, 534 N.Y.S.2d 912, 531 N.E.2d 633 (1988); People v. Severino, 91 Misc.2d 898, 398 N.Y.S.2......
-
People v. Hankin
...former Penal Law § 270]; see also, Matter of Kronenberg, 136 A.D.2d 264, 527 N.Y.S.2d 44 (2d Dept.1988); People v. Kramer, 132 A.D.2d 708, 518 N.Y.S.2d 189 (2d Dept.1987). Assuming, therefore, that these new allegations enable the prosecution to succeed in scaling the employment hurdle in t......