People v. Sadiq
| Decision Date | 24 February 1997 |
| Citation | 654 N.Y.S.2d 35,236 A.D.2d 638 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Sikandar SADIQ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Brafman Gilbert & Ross, P.C., New York City (Benjamin Brafman and Brett D. Gilbert, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano, Robin A. Forshaw, and Laurie M. Israel, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, FLORIO and LUCIANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), rendered April 18, 1996, convicting him of unauthorized practice of a profession (2 counts), criminal impersonation in the second degree (2 counts), and sexual abuse in the third degree (2 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reversing the defendant's convictions for criminal impersonation in the second degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of unauthorized practice of a profession (2 counts), criminal impersonation in the second degree (2 counts), and sexual abuse in the third degree (2 counts) in connection with medical procedures he performed on two female patients. The defendant claimed to be licensed to practice medicine in the Dominican Republic but stipulated that he was not licensed to practice in New York State.
The defendant argues that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support his convictions for criminal impersonation in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 190.25[1] ). The defendant correctly contends that in order to be found guilty of this offense, the People must have established that he impersonated a real person. The People do not argue on appeal, nor did they establish at trial, that the defendant assumed the identity of a real person (see, People v. Powell, 59 A.D.2d 950, 399 N.Y.S.2d 477; People v. Sherman, 116 Misc.2d 109, 455 N.Y.S.2d 528). Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under Penal Law § 190.25(1). Although this error was not objected to at trial, under the circumstances of this case, we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse the defendant's convictions for criminal impersonation in the second degree (see, CPL...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breitkopf v. Gentile
...... with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another.” N.Y. Penal Law § 190.25(1) ; see, e.g., People v. Sadiq, 236 A.D.2d 638, 654 N.Y.S.2d 35, 36 (1997). Because subsection (3) requires “intent to induce another to submit to such pretended authority ... or to otherwise caus......
-
People v. Alba
...of Criminal Impersonation], the People must have established that [the defendant] impersonated a real person.” People v. Sadiq, 236 A.D.2d 638, 639, 654 N.Y.S.2d 35 (2d Dept.1997). As one court has held, relying on Sadiq, “in requiring that a defendant prosecuted for identity theft have ass......
-
Evans v. State
...character intending to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another person.").49 Id. (emphasis added).50 See People v. Sadiq , 236 A.D.2d 638, 654 N.Y.S.2d 35, 36 (1997) (reversing conviction for criminal impersonation for insufficient evidence where the State did not present evidence a......
-
People v. Debranche
...Penal Law § 190.25[1] ). And criminal impersonation requires that a "real person" have been impersonated (People v. Sadiq, 236 A.D.2d 638, 639, 654 N.Y.S.2d 35 [2d Dept.1997]; see also People v. Powell, 59 A.D.2d 950, 399 N.Y.S.2d 477 [2d Dept.1977] ). Simply put, to open a credit line in a......