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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
