People v. Mosesson

Decision Date31 May 1974
Citation78 Misc.2d 217,356 N.Y.S.2d 483
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Norman MOSESSON, Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

Richard Kuh, Dist. Atty., of New York County, Franklin E. White, Human Resources Administration, New York City (Abraham Hoffman, New York City, of counsel), and Adrian P. Burke, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Philip Agree, New York City, of counsel), for the People.

Joseph Aronstein, New York City, for defendant.

Norman Mosesson, pro se.

IRVING LANG, Justice:

The defendant was indicted on December 19, 1969 and charged with grand larceny, forgery, and other related crimes, in a 33-count indictment. These charges arose out of certain business dealings between the defendant and the Human Resources Administration of the City of New York. On January 21, 1970, the defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the first degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. Sentence was deferred until August 16, 1972, during which time the defendant paid approximately $9,000 to the Department of Probation as partial restitution. On August 10, 1972, the defendant executed a confession of judgment in favor of the City of New York in the amount of $23,515, based on 'the facts and circumstances underlying indictment #4006/69.' On August 16, 1972, the defendant was sentenced to five years probation. Amongst the conditions of such sentence were the repayment of monies due and supervision by the Probation Department. *

On June 9, 1972, some two months prior to sentence the defendant filed a petition in bankruptcy in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The New York City Human Resources Administration was listed therein as a priority creditor for an unknown amount. An order of discharge in bankruptcy was entered on September 4, 1973.

The defendant now moves this court for an order discharging him from the condition of probationary supervision on the grounds (1) the discharge in bankruptcy removed defendant's legal obligation to make further restitution and (2) medical and employment reasons.

A discharge in bankruptcy has no effect whatsoever upon a condition of restitution of a criminal sentence. A bankruptcy proceeding is civil in nature and is intended to relieve an honest and unfortunate debtor of his debts and to permit him to begin his financial life anew (In re Munford, D.C., 255 F. 108). A condition of restitution in a sentence of probation is a part of the judgment of conviction. It does not create a debt nor a debtor/creditor relationship between the persons making and receiving restitution. As with any other condition of a probationary sentence it is intended as a means to insure the defendant will lead a law-abiding life thereafter (Penal Law, 65.10)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Kelly v. Robinson
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 1986
    ...sentence it is intended as a means to insure the defendant will lead a law-abiding life thereafter." State v. Mosesson, 78 Misc.2d 217, 218, 356 N.Y.S.2d 483, 484 (1974) (citations omitted).7 Thus, Congress enacted the Code in 1978 against the background of an established judicial exception......
  • People v. Milne, 83SA451
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 5 Noviembre 1984
    ...between the defendant and the victim, and it is not intended as a substitute for a civil action for damages. People v. Mosesson, 78 Misc.2d 217, 356 N.Y.S.2d 483 (Sup.Ct.1974). The bankruptcy laws, in contrast, are designed to provide financial relief to overly extended debtors. Matter of C......
  • State v. Lack
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 6 Julio 1982
    ...creates neither a debt nor a debtor-creditor relationship between the persons making and receiving restitution. People v. Mosesson, 78 Misc.2d 217, 356 N.Y.S.2d 483 (Sup.Ct.1974). However, under § 31-17-1, supra, the court, as a condition of probation, must require the defendant in conjunct......
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 19 Agosto 1986
    ...at 218, quoting Huggett v. State (1978), 83 Wis.2d 790, 798, 266 N.W.2d 403, 407. See also Milne, at 837; People v. Mosesson (1974), 78 Misc.2d 217, 218, 356 N.Y.S.2d 483, 484. The primary goal of restitution is, therefore, to vindicate the rights of society, not to compensate the offender'......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT