Arsonist Who Tried to Defraud Insurer Failed to Avoid Jail
Post number 5364
Posted on June 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Arson is a Violent and Dangerous Crime Deserving Serious Punishment
The People of the State of New York v. Zef Gjurashaj, 2026 NY Slip Op 03320, No. 2023-03675, Ind. No. 70463/21, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (May 27, 2026) the defendant owned a restaurant that was destroyed by fire on September 6, 2017. Prosecutors alleged that he and a codefendant conspired to intentionally set the fire in order to obtain financial benefit.
At the time of the fire, the defendant’s wife was present in the restaurant, and the indictment alleged that she was not a participant in the crime. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree arson, second-degree conspiracy, two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, second-degree insurance fraud, and fifth-degree criminal tax fraud.
LAW
The appellate court applied several key legal principles:
1. Preservation doctrine (CPL 470.05[2]) Issues are generally not reviewable on appeal unless properly objected to at trial. [First-degree arson (Penal Law § 150.20)
2. Accessorial liability (Penal Law § 20.00): A person can be held criminally liable for conduct carried out with another.
3. Legal sufficiency standard: Evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
4. Weight of the evidence review (CPL 470.15[5]): The appellate court independently reviews the record but gives deference to the jury’s credibility determinations.
5. Summation misconduct standard: Prosecutorial comments warrant reversal only if they are improper and so pervasive or egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
6. Sentence review: A sentence will not be disturbed unless it is excessive.
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS
The court rejected the defendant’s arguments on appeal.
First, the claim that the jury charge on first-degree arson was defective was held unpreserved, because defense counsel affirmatively stated that he had no objection to the charge. The court added that, in any event, the charge adequately conveyed the governing law.
Second, the defendant challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence concerning whether he knew facts making his wife’s presence a reasonable possibility and whether she was a nonparticipant. The court held that the first argument was unpreserved, because the trial motion to dismiss did not specifically raise that point. However, the court found that the second argument—whether the wife was a participant—was preserved. On the merits, the court held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to establish that the wife was not a participant in the arson.
Third, on the weight of the evidence, the appellate court conducted its independent review and concluded that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court emphasized its deference to the jury’s ability to assess witness credibility and found that the jury was justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fourth, the defendant argued that the prosecutor’s summation misstated the law and evidence and improperly bolstered credibility. The court found this issue unpreserved because defense counsel did not object or seek curative instructions. Even so, the court held that most of the challenged comments were permissible rhetorical responses or fair comment on the evidence, and any improper remarks were not so serious as to deny the defendant a fair trial.
The New York Court accords great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor Upon reviewing the record here, the court was satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.
Finally, the court held that the sentence was not excessive.
CONCLUSION
Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without engaging in the selective dissection of the integrated testimony of a single witness as to whom credibility, or incredibility, could only be a constant factor. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction. Most of the defendant’s appellate arguments were either unpreserved or without merit, and the court found the evidence legally sufficient, the verdict supported by the weight of the evidence, the prosecutor’s remarks not reversible error, and the sentence appropriate.
ZALMA OPINION
Arsonists are not nice people. Arson is a violent crime where innocent people are injured or killed by the fire. He tried to avoid the conviction and the court saw through his arguments that were either unpreserved or legally insufficient. The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor mischaracterized the law and evidence and improperly bolstered his own credibility during summation was unpreserved for appellate review. Since the majority of the challenged comments at trial were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments and constituted a fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or a fair comment on the evidence the grounds stated by the defendant were ineffective and the judgment of conviction stood and the arsonist would serve his sentence.
(c) 2026 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://gbarryzalma.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://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims 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 ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
