State v. Talafous
| Decision Date | 10 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-3594-17T2 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSEPH J. TALAFOUS, JR., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Koblitz, Whipple, and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 16-05-0072.
Gerald D. Miller argued the cause for appellant (Miller, Meyerson & Corbo, attorneys; Gerald D. Miller and Nirmalan Nagulendran, on the briefs).
Evgeniya Sitnikova, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Evgeniya Sitnikova, of counsel and on the brief).
Defendant, Joseph J. Talafous, Jr., appeals from an April 10, 2018 judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of seventeen counts under an indictment charging money laundering, theft, misapplication of entrusted property, and failure to make lawful disposition, as well as tax fraud involving estate and trust funds of five clients and filing fraudulent tax returns. We affirm.
We discern the following facts from the trial record. In 1994, defendant began working as a lawyer in his father's law office in Jersey City. About five years later, after his father Joseph Talafous, Sr. retired, defendant continued the practice and represented clients in areas such as elder law and wills, trusts, and estates.
In 2013, the State began investigating defendant's legal practice after it received a referral from the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE). Detective Scott Stevens of the Division of Criminal Justice subpoenaed defendant's attorney trust and business account records, as well as account records for Peter Pasinosky, the estate of Peter Pasinosky, the Jared Sherengo trust, and the estates of Mildred Colavito, Maria Matarazzo, and Michael Zaccaria.
The investigation resulted in defendant's indictment on nineteen counts relating to his theft of client funds and misreporting revenue on his tax returns, as follows:
Count One, first-degree financial facilitation of criminal activity, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(b)(2)(a);
Counts Two, Five, and Eight, second-degree theft by unlawful taking, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3, from, respectively, the Jared Sherengo trust, the estate of Mildred Colavito, and the estate of Michael Zaccaria;
Counts Three, Six, Nine, and Twelve, second-degree theft by failure to make required disposition of property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-9, belonging to, respectively, the Jared Sherengo trust, the estate of Mildred Colavito, the estate of Michael Zaccaria, and the estate of Maria Matarazzo;
Counts Four, Seven, Ten, Thirteen, and Fifteen, second-degree misapplication of entrusted property, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-15, from, respectively, the Jared Sherengo trust, the estate of Mildred Colavito, the estate of Michael Zaccaria, the estate of Maria Matarazzo, and Peter Pasinosky and the estate of Peter Pasinosky;
Counts Eleven and Fourteen, second-degree theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4, from, respectively, the estate of Maria Matarazzo, and Peter Pasinosky and the estate of Peter Pasinosky; and Counts Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, and Nineteen, third-degree filing false or fraudulent gross income tax returns, for tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, N.J.S.A. 54:52-10.
Defendant moved to dismiss various counts of the indictment, and on October 13, 2016, the court heard argument and granted the motion in part, dismissing count one and not the remaining counts.
On June 13, 2017, we affirmed dismissal of the first count of the indictment on the State's interlocutory appeal. State v. Talafous, No. A-1838-16 (App. Div. June 13, 2017).
Peter Pasinosky1 was blind most of his life and operated a newsstand at the courthouse in Hackensack. While working at the courthouse, Peter met defendant's father, who he retained to draft a will. The will designated Joseph J. Talafous, Sr., as co-executor of the will, along with Peter's nephew, John Pasinosky. John testified he moved from New Jersey to California in the mid-1990s, but remained in contact with his uncle.
In March 2007, John traveled to New Jersey to move Peter into a senior living facility. While in New Jersey, John reviewed his uncle's will and saw that it was written by an attorney named Joseph Talafous. Since John did not know any other attorneys who could handle the necessary financial arrangements for his uncle, he called defendant and spoke with him on at least two occasions.
John explained that his uncle had a complicated financial portfolio, amounting to between $400,000 and $450,000. Since the senior living facility required a down payment of $170,000 to move in, Peter needed someone to act as his power of attorney to liquidate some of his assets and make the required payment. Peter appointed defendant to serve as his power of attorney, executing the requisite form on March 2, 2007. Thereafter, Peter completed the necessary paperwork for admission to the senior living facility in the presence of one of his relatives and defendant.
John also took Peter to Hudson City Savings Bank and added himself as a joint owner of Peter's bank account to assist Peter with the payments of his monthly bills—a phone bill and a maintenance fee. As joint owner of the bank account, John paid these bills for his uncle, because he did not believe it was worth the expense to have defendant pay the bills.
Thereafter, defendant periodically visited Peter whenever Peter called him with an issue. Defendant's office assistant, Lizette Vazquez, went to the senior living facility with defendant on two or three occasions but never prepared a bill for any of defendant's visits. Instead, defendant claimed that Peter agreed to pay him a $10,000 yearly retainer during the last few years of his life.
During a visit in August 2008, John asked Peter for a loan of $14,000 to pay his daughter's tuition bill. Peter approved the loan while defendant drafted the necessary documents and had John sign a promissory note and mortgage. Defendant transferred the loan money from Peter's account to his attorney trust account, and then issued the loan check to John from his attorney trust account.
In March 2009, defendant requested that John repay the loan, after learning John sold the property that was used as collateral for the loan. In repaying the loan, John wrote a check and deposited it into his uncle's Hudson City Savings Bank account. Defendant informed John that this was improper, and made John send the check directly to him.
According to Vazquez, defendant charged Peter $10,000 for his efforts in drafting the loan documents and obtaining repayment of the loan. However, there is no documentation of the time defendant spent performing these acts,because defendant never prepared any bills for his work for Peter, either before or after his death.
Peter resided in the senior living facility for three years until he was hospitalized in February 2010. During Peter's hospitalization, John spoke with defendant and told him Peter did not have long to live. Defendant then made two withdrawals from Peter's account, the first on March 2 and the second on March 5, 2010. On March 10, 2010, Peter died.
Two weeks after Peter's death, on March 25, 2010, John flew to New Jersey to coordinate with defendant to address mortuary services and estate issues in accordance with the instructions Peter had written during his lifetime. Prior to John's arrival, defendant arranged for the cremation of Peter's remains. According to John, Peter had already paid for a tombstone and the cost of cremation prior to his death; Vazquez, however, testified that defendant arranged for payment to the monument company. John further testified he and his sister arranged for the burial of Peter's remains.
While in New Jersey, John met with defendant three times, and went with him to Surrogate Court to complete paperwork. John knew Peter's will named defendant's father as co-executor of Peter's will; however, defendant informed him that he bought out his father's business, and the law firm was transferred tohim. John interpreted this information to mean defendant inherited the role of co-executor of Peter's will when he took over the law firm.
Defendant maintained that John agreed for him to serve as co-executor, knowing it was his father, Joseph Talafous, Sr., who was named as co-executor in the will. Defendant also maintained that he orally informed the Hudson County Surrogate that the will named his father as co-executor, and not him. Nevertheless, the Surrogate signed the paperwork, approving him to serve as co-executor.
Linda Baisden, the Deputy Surrogate of Hudson County, disputed defendant's statements. She testified to her understanding that defendant, not his father, was the named co-executor in Peter's will. She further testified defendant swore under oath that he was the named co-executor. She stated that she did not compare signatures, or otherwise notice that defendant's signature, on the probate documents, did not match the signature of the Joseph Talafous on the will.
Detective Stevens testified that defendant made multiple withdrawals from Peter's account in the interim between Peter's death, when the power of attorney was no longer valid, and the time when defendant was named co-executor of the estate.
Before John returned to California, defendant gave him a retainer agreement to sign. However, John never signed the agreement because there were no rates included in it. Defendant asserted that, as co-executor, John received statements from Peter's estate account, which was with Morgan Stanley. Defendant claimed he kept John apprised of the work that he was doing for the estate, including bil...
To continue reading
Request your trial