Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Fox

Other Lower Courts

April 2, 2001

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Charles E. Fox and Denise R. Johnson-Fox, Defendants.

COUNSEL

Sall, Caltagirone & Coleman, Poughkeepsie (Christopher S. Coleman of counsel), for Denise R. Johnson-Fox, defendant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney of Dutchess County, Poughkeepsie (William J. O'Neill of counsel), for plaintiff.

David Goodman, Public Defender of Dutchess County, Poughkeepsie (Thomas N. N. Angell of counsel), for Charles E. Fox, defendant.

OPINION

Gerald V. Hayes, J.

The defendants have been charged in a one-count indictment

Page 379

with grand larceny in the third degree, a class D felony, in violation of section 155.35 of the Penal Law. It is alleged that, acting in concert, between March 1, 1998 and July 30, 1999 pursuant to a common plan and scheme, they stole over $3,000 from the City of Beacon Housing Authority.

Essentially, the allegation is that the defendants certified to the Beacon Housing Authority that Charles E. Fox (hereinafter referred to as the husband) was not employed but that, in fact, there was a time during which he was employed, making them ineligible to receive the benefit or subsidy from the Housing Authority which in fact they received.

The defendant Denise R. Johnson-Fox (hereinafter referred to as the wife) has moved for a severance. The basis for her request is that she wishes to call her husband as a witness.

During the pendency of a prior indictment which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, the husband signed an affidavit in which he alleged essentially that there were marital problems between them and that during a majority of the relevant time he was not living with his wife and further that he did not tell her of his employment.

Counsel for the husband does not oppose the severance but does state that his client at this time has not committed one way or the other as to whether he would testify at his wife's separate trial or whether he would exercise his right against self-incrimination.

The Assistant District Attorney opposes the motion on the ground that it is reasonably likely that the husband will not testify at the wife's trial. No reasons for that conclusion are set forth in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.