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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
After ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
