Fraudster Has no Basis to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Post 5026
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/ginAHFny, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gGMGgKiD and at https://lnkd.in/gBQQAV_3, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In United States Of America v. Glenn Griffin, No. 22 CR 390-1 (VB), United States District Court, S.D. New York (March 13, 2025) Glenn Griffin sought to withdraw the guilty plea he entered on August 26, 2024. During a change of plea hearing before Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik, Griffin pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud that he wishes to change when he found out the potential sentence.
GRIFFIN’S ARGUMENTS TO WITHDRAW PLEA
Glenn Griffin made two key arguments in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea:
1. Improper Pressure from Counsel: Griffin argued that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because his prior counsel, Stephen J. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., improperly pressured him to plead guilty.
2. Intervening Developments: Griffin maintained that intervening developments since the plea hearing revealed the government’s case to be substantially weaker than he was initially led to believe by McCarthy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Griffin was arrested on July 21, 2022, on an indictment that included charges of bribery and wire fraud, among others. He was accused of conspiring with Robert Dyckman, an employee of the Town of Cortlandt, New York, to allow unauthorized dumping at a town facility in exchange for bribes. Additionally, Griffin was involved in a bid-rigging scheme to defraud municipalities.
THE PLEA COLLOQUY
The colloquy turned when the magistrate judge asked Griffin to say in his own words “what you did to commit these crimes.” Griffin responded by partially admitting to some of the charged conduct; he acknowledged that he “gave Bobby Dyckman a couple hundred bucks a few times around the holidays as . . . [a] gratuity,” and said that, “as far as the bids . . . I did ask people over time to help me just because I was-I had relationships with people, and I did ask other people to put in some bids,” but asserted that he “didn’t do it with all the ones that they said.”
When Judge Reznik asked if Griffin had agreed to an illegal dumping scheme, he responded, “No.” But later he responded: “In-for just to make this easier on everybody, yes, Your Honor. But it was . . . if it was a few hundred dollars a couple of times, and I had permission for years and years and years.”
Griffin’s sworn testimony during the plea colloquy carried a strong presumption of accuracy and that his later contradictory statements were found by the court to not be sufficient grounds to withdraw the plea. The court also found that Griffin’s counsel had provided an honest assessment of the case and that Griffin had ample opportunity to discuss the plea agreement with his counsel.
ANALYSIS
The voluntariness of Griffin’s guilty plea was the dispositive issue presented to the District Court.
The Court concluded that Griffin voluntarily pleaded guilty. When a Court rejects a defendant’s claim of involuntariness that finding alone is sufficient to reject the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Griffin testified that, on August 26, Mr. McCarthy encouraged him to plead guilty but made clear that the choice was Griffin’s alone. Not only does Griffin’s testimony undermine his claim that Mr. McCarthy coerced him to plead guilty, but it reinforces the presumption of verity attached to the statements he made during the plea colloquy.
Griffin failed to meet his burden and Griffin’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied. Griffin’s sentencing will proceed on April 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
ZALMA OPINION
Plea bargains exist to save the time of the prosecution and the court when the defendant agrees that the facts against him are sufficient to find him guilty by a jury and a lesser sentence that he would have received if found guilty by a jury. Second thoughts about his guilt is insufficient to allow a person who voluntarily pleaded guilty to withdraw his plea. He will be sentenced in April and will spend time in the gray bar hotel.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
