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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
