People v. McLaughlin

• Citation: 571 N.Y.S.2d 16,174 A.D.2d 418
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John J. McLAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 13 June 1991
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 16

571 N.Y.S.2d 16

174 A.D.2d 418

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

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

June 13, 1991.

Before MILONAS, J.P., and ASCH, KASSAL and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.), rendered December 9, 1986, which, after a jury trial, convicted defendant of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree (former Penal Law § 155.35), and one count each of forgery in the second degree (P.L. § 170.10) and offering a false instrument for filing in the first and second degrees (P.L. §§ 175.35, 175.30), and sentenced him to concurrent terms of six months in prison and four and one-half years on probation for the counts of grand larceny, forgery, and first degree false filing, and sixty days in prison and two years, ten months on probation for the count of second degree false filing, unanimously modified, on the law, to reverse the conviction for offering a false instrument in the first degree, vacate the sentence thereon, and dismiss said count, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant, a now disbarred attorney, was indicted on August 20, 1985, and charged with sixteen counts, consisting of grand larceny in the second degree, forgery in the second degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first and second degrees, and violating the New York Tax Law. The charges stemmed from defendant's actions as trustee of trusts established by the well-known appliance manufacturer, Maytag, with his granddaughter, Ann L. Maytag, and her son, John C. Poulos, as beneficiaries. Among the acts which formed the basis for defendant's indictment and subsequent conviction were a double-billing scheme by which he obtained reimbursement for identical travel expenses from both trusts, the alteration of an airline ticket to increase its price upon submission as an expense to the Maytag trust, and a triple reimbursement scheme under which defendant obtained funds from the assets of a partnership he had formed with Maytag, as well as from the bank and through writing checks on Maytag's account.

On March 31, 1986, a second indictment, charging defendant with bribe receiving in the second degree, was filed. This charge arose in connection with defendant's acceptance of 10,000 shares of stock at a substantial discount, despite the existence of an obvious conflict of interest stemming from his former positions in New York City government. Defendant arranged for the purchase to be made in Maytag's name and later reaped a profit by claiming a $50,000 credit against the price of her Manhattan apartment.

Following a two-month trial commencing on June 18, 1986, in which the testimony of 45 witnesses was heard and hundreds of exhibits were received, defendant was convicted and sentenced as aforenoted. On appeal, he urges that his convictions for grand larceny and forgery must be reversed and those counts dismissed because the trial evidence failed to establish that venue was properly placed in New...