People v. Monteiro
| Decision Date | 01 March 2012 |
| Citation | 939 N.Y.S.2d 629,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01527,93 A.D.3d 898 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ana Paula MONTEIRO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01527
93 A.D.3d 898
939 N.Y.S.2d 629
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ana Paula MONTEIRO, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
March 1, 2012.
Diane E. Selker, Peekskill, for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Kenneth C. Weafer of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, Acting P.J., SPAIN, KAVANAGH, STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ.
MERCURE, Acting P.J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered May 13, 2010, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of falsifying business records in the first degree (nine counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (three counts), scheme to defraud in the first degree, failure to file an income tax return (two counts) and filing a false and fraudulent tax return (two counts).
Following an investigation, codefendant Aaron Dare and defendant, his fiancée, were charged in a 59–count indictment with offenses stemming from their involvement in a mortgage fraud scheme. Dare, who operated various business entities that prepared loan applications for individuals interested in purchasing real property and subsequently handled the closings, was indisputably the mastermind of the scheme. Defendant, however, worked as a loan officer for those businesses and was charged as an accessory ( see Penal Law § 20.00). With Dare's control over the process, numerous opportunities existed to alter paperwork and misdirect funds, and two primary methods were employed to do so. The first involved a “show check” drawn by the buyer using funds provided to that buyer by one of defendant's real estate companies. The show check would be used to demonstrate to lenders that the buyer had the purported wherewithal to make a down payment and, thereafter, the buyer would return the funds to Dare. The second method was to submit inaccurate documents to the lender that inflated the purchase price of the property and, in turn, justified a higher loan amount. In either case, a portion of the loan proceeds were then funneled into defendant's personal accounts to fund her and Dare's lavish lifestyle.
Dare pleaded guilty to various counts in satisfaction of the indictment and is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence, imposed as a result of this matter and other federal and state convictions arising out of his fraudulent conduct. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of nine counts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lloyd
...inferrable from the surrounding circumstances ( see People v. Martin, 116 A.D.3d 1166, 1166, 983 N.Y.S.2d 360 [2014];People v. Monteiro, 93 A.D.3d 898, 899, 939 N.Y.S.2d 629 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 116, 973 N.E.2d 214 [2012] ). With respect to the 11 counts of unlawful ......
-
People v. Piznarski
...and gave appropriate weight to the devastating and profound effect of defendant's actions upon the victims ( see People v. Monteiro, 93 A.D.3d 898, 900, 939 N.Y.S.2d 629 [2012], lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 116, 973 N.E.2d 214 [2012]; People v. Sapienza, 91 A.D.3d 988, 989, 935 N.Y......
-
People v. Rizvi
...was less than the maximum statutory sentence and was reasonable in light of the serious nature of the crime (see People v. Monteiro, 93 A.D.3d 898, 900, 939 N.Y.S.2d 629 [2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 116, 973 N.E.2d 214 [2012] ; People v. Hanrahan, 9 A.D.3d 689, 689, 780 N.......
-
People v. Michaels
...43, 50–52, 702 N.Y.S.2d 119 [1999], appeal dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 900, 707 N.Y.S.2d 145, 728 N.E.2d 341 [2000] ; compare People v. Monteiro, 93 A.D.3d 898, 899–900, 939 N.Y.S.2d 629 [2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 116, 973 N.E.2d 214 [2012] ). To the extent that the People attem......