People v. SimontonPeople v. Simonton
—Judgmеnt unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordancе with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment conviсting her of grand larceny in the third degree, fraudulently obtaining public assistancе, misuse of food stamps and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration of 1 to 3 years on each count except on the count of fraudulently obtaining public assistance, for which she was sentenced to a concurrent term of one year. Defendant was also ordеred to pay restitution of $5,124 plus a 10% surcharge.
Defendant contends that Cоunty Court erred in setting the surcharge on the amount of restitution at 10% rather than 5%. Wе agree. Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (8), in imposing restitution or reparation, the court shall direct a defendant to pay a surcharge of 5% of the actual amount of restitution or
The People also agree with defendant that the court erred in failing to reverse the conviction of fraudulently obtaining public assistance, a misdemeanor offense under Social Services Law § 145, based upоn defendant’s conviction under the Penal Law for the same conduct, i.е., grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35). Social Services Law § 145 (1) provides in part that a person who obtains public assistance by means of a false statement or by deliberate concealment of a material fact “shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such act constitutes a viоlation of a provision of the penal law of the state of New York, in which case he shall be punished in accordance with the penаlties fixed by such law.” Therefore, the misdemeanor conviction under Social Services Law § 145 must be reversed (see, People v Pryor,
We reject defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove the element of intеnt with respect to the crimes of grand larceny and offering a false instrumеnt for filing and failed to prove that defendant acted knowingly with respeсt to the crimes of fraudulently obtaining public assistance and misuse of food stamps. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Peoplе (see, People v Thompson,
Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We modify the judgment, therefore, by vacating that part of the sentence ordering defеndant to pay an additional 5% surcharge in addition to the 5% surcharge directed by Penal Law § 60.27 (8) and by reversing the conviction of fraudulently obtaining public assistance, vacating the sentence imposed thereon and