False Report of Theft of Vehicle Established
Post 5090
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-u7tmVR and at https://lnkd.in/gQWkDv23 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Creating a Fake Theft of Vehicle and Insurance Claim is a Crime
Shonda Brown faced multiple charges, including felonies related to false reporting and insurance fraud changed to class A misdemeanors such as tampering with public records and making false statements.
The case arose from allegations that Brown paid an informant to move her inoperable vehicle and then reported it stolen to the NYPD, despite evidence suggesting the vehicle had been tampered with and was found in a damaged state.
In The People of the State of New York v. Shonda Brown, Index No. CR-024423-24KN, 2025 NY Slip Op 25122, Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (May 23, 2025) the Criminal Court concluded that the charges were appropriately filed and rejected Brown’s motion to dismiss.
Sufficiency of the Accusatory Instrument
The court assessed whether the accusatory instrument met the legal standards for facial sufficiency. The court concluded that the instrument adequately designated the offenses and provided reasonable cause to believe that Brown committed the alleged crimes. The court noted that the statement of Fire Marshal Joseph Hayes (“FM Hayes”) of the New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”) and the supporting deposition from the informant, Mohammed, provided sufficient factual basis to support the charges. Furthermore, FM Hayes’ averment that he “observed All-State Insurance records to show defendant filed an insurance claim for said vehicle,” taken together with his averment that he was informed that defendant paid Mohammed to move defendant’s vehicle, satisfied the reasonable cause standard to the extent that defendant was informed of the accusations, i.e., making sworn false statements in violation of PL § § 210.35, 210.45, and provided her with enough information as to the defenses available.
The court highlighted that non-hearsay allegations were present in the instrument, which included the details of the vehicle’s condition and the actions taken by Brown and although some statements were deemed hearsay, they were remedied by the supporting deposition that confirmed their truthfulness.
Validity of the People’s Certificate of Compliance
The court found that the prosecution exercised due diligence in disclosing discoverable materials. The absence of certain items, such as recordings or police reports, did not invalidate the certificate as the prosecution demonstrated that these items did not exist.
Discovery Obligations
The prosecution was required to disclose all relevant materials, including those that could potentially exculpate Brown.
Speedy Trial Considerations
The court analyzed the timelines related to the speedy trial rights of the defendant. The original felony complaint was filed on June 13, 2024, and the charges were reduced on October 23, 2024. The court calculated the elapsed time and determined that the prosecution had complied with the speedy trial requirements, as they acted within the six-month period mandated by law.
Therefore, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges, affirming that the legal proceedings adhered to the necessary protocols and standards and defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
People who commit insurance fraud, like Ms. Brown, refuse to accept the fact that they were caught and charged with crimes relating to their attempt at fraud. Ms. Brown attempted to avoid the charges by a motion to dismiss with charges of wrongdoing by the police and the prosecution without a factual basis. She will go to trial on the charges and there is a good chance she will be convicted or plead guilty before trial.
(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 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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
