COUNTY COURT, ROCKLAND COUNTY THE STATE OF NEW YORK ROCKLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 2/ (6 1 SOUTH MAIN STREET NEW CITY, NEW YORK 10956 TEL. (845) 483-8340 CHAMBERS OF DAVID s. ZUCKERMAN ?g COUNTY COURT JUDGE November 10 2016 My? Richard K. Moran, Esq. Executive Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney, Rockland County 1 South Main Street New City, NY 10956 William A. Gerard, Esq. 71 Woods Road, PO Box 717 Palisades, NY 10964 Law Office of Brian A. Kelly, Esq. 250 West Route 59 Spring Valley, NY 10977 Re: People Walter Booker and Jacob Goldman, 2016-186 Counselors, The Court has the Omnibus Motion in the above-captioned matter under consideration. In inspecting the Grand Jury minutes, the Court has concerns regarding the following Issues. the first of which was raised by Defendant Booker In his moving papers. 1. Whether a larceny may properly be charged for the alleged theft of an RPTL Article 4 tax exemption; 2.Whether the indictment properly Charges the value of the alleged theft, if Defendant Goldman was entitled to an exemption for some or all of the premises; 3. How were the documents which were filed, and constitute business records, false? Pursuant to People Coleman, 131 705 (2nd Dept 2015), and CPL the Court hereby advises the parties regarding the aforementioned specific potential defects in the Grand Jury proceedings. The People are afforded until 5:00 pm, on Wednesday 16 November, 2016, to advise the Court regarding the above?expressed concerns. Counsel for Defendants shall then have until 9:00 am. on Monday 21 November, 2016 to respond. . Raymond Mechmann Jr. Principal Law Clerk Hon. David S. Zuckerman '1 112's! is 00:1.8 'FRori- . Of?ce of the District Attorney County of Rockland THOMAS zoom DISTRICT ATTORNEY November 28, 2016 Honorable David S. Zuckerman, A.J.S.C. County Court County of Rockland 1 S. Main St. New City, New York 10956 Via Hand Delivery Re: People v. Walter Booker Ind. 2016-186 Dear Judge Zuckerman, This of?ce is in receipt of the Court?s correspondence, dated October 3, 2016 expressing concerns pursuant to People v. Coleman, 131 705 (2nd Dept. 2015). Prior to submission of this letter Jacob Goldman pleaded guilty before your Honor and in doing so withdrew all motions before the court. As such, this letter will address the Court?s concerns as they related to defendant Walter Booker. REGARDING WHETHER A LARCENY MAY BE PROPERLY CHARGED FOR THE A Rockland County Grand Jury voted a true bill against the defendant Mr: Booker for the offenses of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree. Upon examination of People v. Nappo, the People concede that while the Grand Jury?s determination is logically consistent with the evidence presented, the aforementioned controlling case law holds that unpaid taxes, however fraudulently retained, are not property ?owned" by the municipality. REGARDING THE FALSITY OF THE FILED .BUSINESS RECORDS Below, the People will address, in turn, the documents with regard to their falsity. Prior to doing so, however, the People will ?rst give the People's position with respect to the evidence presented to the Grand Jury in its entirety and its relevance to determining both the falisty of the business records themselves as well as the defendant's fraudulent intent in issuing and falsifying the same. As the Court is aware, an indictment is supported by legally suf?cient evidence when the competent evidence, if accepted as true, would establish each and every element of the offense(s) One South Main Street - Suite 500 - New City, NY 10956 - (845) 638~5oci . Fax (845) 638-5298 . rocklandL?ountydanom w?w not- T-588 F-021 charged. See Peeple v. Jennings, 69 103 (1986). The Court of Appeals in Jennings further held that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the People. Id. Further, as this court has correctly pointed out, ?[t]he reviewing court?s inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof ?of each element of the charged crimes and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the inference of guilt.? Bella, 92 523 (1998). The Grand Jury evidence for this matter was comprehensive, extensive and must be analyzed as a totality of circumstances before the Grand Jury's true bill can truly be fairly evaluated and ruled upon by a court. . Pena Law 175.05 codi?es the falsi?cation of blisiness records broadly, and in doing 30 includes the making or causing to be made a false entry in the business records of an enterprise. It is axiomatic that the Village of Spring Valley Building Department as well as the Town of Ramapo Tax Assessm records are ?business records? of an ?enterprise? as de?ned in Penal Law 1 75 .00. An intent to defraud takes place when an individual ?les with the state a document containing false statements for the purpose of frustrating the state?s power to fulfill its respOnsibility to faithfully carry out its own law. See People v. Kare, 53 989 (1981). The evidence before the Grand Jury showed that Jacob Goldman was running two daycare centers out of his home. (Testimony of Claudia SOperanez P. 3.) The evidence further showed that in order to maintain two daycare centers and continue to be paid by the state, Rabbi Goldman needed a certi?cate of occupancy for a two-family dwelling (Testimony of Claudia Superanez, pp. 4-6; Testimony of Dawne Kurisko, p. 14, lines 6-13.) In fact, the evidence presented showed that if Rabbi Goldman did not have a certi?cate of occupancy for a two-family dwelling, he would not have been barred from operating two daycare facilities out of his home. (Testimony of Claudia Soperanez, p. 9 and 10.) Perhaps most importantly, the defendant Walter Booker was aware of this very important fact (Testimony of Walter Booker, p. 129, lines 13-22.) The evidence further established two critical factors in relation to the designation of Rabbi Goldman's residence. First, that for): individuals, other than the defendant, inspected the premises between 2011 and 2014 and all four individuals found the dwelling to be a single family dwelling (Testimony of Claudia Soperanez, pp. 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12; Testimony of DaWne Kurisko, pp. 15 and 20; . Testmony of Ramapo Tax Assessor Scott Schedler, pp. 58 and 59; and Testimony of Deputy Building Inspector Manny Cannona, pp 71-73.) Second, and signi?cantly, Walter Booker required the defendant to ?nally convert his home legally to a two-family dwelling only after an investigation by the Rockland County Department of Social Services beginning in June of 2014, well after he had already issued three certificates of occupancy certifying a dwelling as a two-family dwelling (See Testimony of Claudia Soperanez, pp. 7 and 8; Testimony of Manny Carmona, p. 85; Testimony of Walter Booker, p. 123.) The Grand Jury further received evidence that the defendant issued certi?cates of occupancy which were not supported by building permits, as would be the normal course of business for the Village of Spring Valley Building Department. In fact, Walter Booker testi?ed that speci?cally that all certi?cates of occupancy must be supported by an attendant building permit because "[t]here has to be some sort of backup, there as to be a paper trail.? (See Testimony of Walter Booker, p. 123.) However, While ?rst testifying that the certi?cates he issued were based upOn valid building permits (See Testimony of Walter Booker, p. 121,) the certi?cates of occupancy issued on 5/22/2012 and 5/24/2013 were not in fact supported by building permits (See Testimony of Manny Carmona, pp. 69-70,) a fact Walter Booker ultimately admitted to before the members of the Grand Jury (See Testimony of Walter Booker, pp. 135-136.) Evaluated alone this may seem innocuous. However, in the totality of the One South Main Street - Suite 500 - New City, NY 10956 . (845) 638-5001 - Fax (845) 638-5298 . rocklandeountyda.com 11?28-?16 08:18 FROM- circumstances before the Grand Jury, this constituted further evidence of issuance of false certi?cates and the defendant's intent to defraud with reSpect to all counts of the indictment. With the preceding facts in mind, the Grand Jury members received evidence that Rabbi Goldman applied for tax exemptions in the years 2012-2014 (Testimony of Scott Schedler, generally.) The Grand ury further heard testimony that each year the exemptions were denied, and each year Rabbi Goldman subsequently ?led a document authored by the defendant, Mr. Booker, in a successful endeavor to cure the reason for the denial (Testimony of Scott Schedler, pp. 53, 54, 62 and 63.) In fact, a perusal of the Grand Jury exhibits supports the conclusion that in the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, Rabbi Goldman applied for a tax exemption for his home at 9 Zeissner Ln, Spring Valley, New York. In each year, his application was initially denied. Subsequently, Rabbi Goldman appealed and used altered certi?cates of occupancy (not supported by an attendant permit) and in one case a letter, all timely issued by Walter Booker in May of the respective year, in order to obtain a tax exemption while still maintaining his designation as a eve-family dwelling for the purpose of operating two daycare centers. In totality, the evidence before the Grand Jury, looked at in the light most favorable to the People supported the conclusion, both directly and circumstantially, that the defendant, acting in concert with Jacob Goldman and with intent to defraud, issued false certi?cates of occupancy which subsequently became part of a building ?le ofthe Village of Spring Valley and a false letter ?led with the Tom of Ramapo Tax Assessor which then became a business record of the same. Certi?cate 0: Occupancy Dated 9/23/2011, Issued by Delano/ant on 5/22/2012 (Counts 7 and 102 The evidence before the Grand Jury supporting this charge is as follows: On 9/23/2011, Deputy Building InspectOr Manny Cannona inspected the residence at 9 Zeissner Ln., Spring Valley, New Yerk, the home of Rabbi Jacob Goldman, and issued a certi?cate of occupancy for a single family dwelling. (See Testimony of Manny Cannona pp. 71-73; p. 80.) The defendant admitted to the members of the . Grand Jury that In May of 2012, Rabbi Goldman came to him and asked that the certi?cate of occupancy be changed (See Testimony of Walter Booker, generally.) The defendant further admitted that as a result, he voided the aforementioned certificate of occupancy issued by Manny Cannona and back-dated a certi?cate of occupancy designating the home as a two-family dwelling for that same date (See Testmony of Walter Booker, generally.) The defendant went on to admit that he did not inspect the home on 9/23/2011, yet issued a certi?cate of occupancy certifying that he did nonetheless (See Testimony of Walter Booker, pp. 127-128 and pp. 166-167.) The defendant further admitted that when he backdated a certi?cate of occupancy on 5/22/2012 designating that on 9/23/20] 1 the home was a two-family dwelling, he did not know what the true condition of the heme had been on 9/23/2011 as he had not inspected it on that date (See Testimony of Walter Booker, pp. 128?129.) Of particular importance was the defendant?s admission that a fire-rated door/wall would have been required in order for the home to be a compliant two-family dwelling (See Testimony of Walter Booker p. 160.) Manny Cannona testi?ed that the same was not present upon his inspection on 9/23/2011 (See testimony of Manny Cannona, p. 80.) In fact, the evidence credited by the members of the Grand Jury was that upon 2, Manny Carmona's inspection of the home on 9/23/2011, 9 Zeissner Ln. was a single family dwelling. Put with respect to the counts charging the defendant with Issuing a. False Certi?cate and Falsifying Business Records in relation to the 9/23/2011 certi?cate of occupancy he iSSued, the . evidence is clear that the defendant back-dated and falsely issued a certi?cate of occupancy certifying that 9 Zeissner Lane was a two-family dwelling on 9/23/20] 1. In fact, he admitted to doing so when testifying before the Grand Jury (See above.) Further, as detailed above, the Grand Jury found that he did so with the intent to defraud the state and the People respectfully assert that their ?nding of fraudulent intent should not be disturbed. The evidence, when looked at in the light most favorable to One South Main Street - Suite 500 - New City, NY 10956 . (845) 6385001 . Fax (845) 6385298 - rocldandcountydacom . . . . . . . . 11?28?? 16 08:18 0007 the People, supports the conclusion that the defendant had knowledge that Rabbi Goldman needed a certi?cate of occupancy for a two-family dwelling in order to maintain two daycare centers at 9 Zeissner Lane. The evidence further supports, both directly and circumstanti ally, a pattern of behavior wherein the defendant would take of?cial actions in order to aid Rabbi Goldman in achieving his ultimate goal of running two daycare centers out of his home while also obtaining yearly tax exemptions at the same property. The Certi?cate Dani 5/22/2012 (Counts 8 and 11 The evidence before the Grand Jury regarding these counts was as follows: In 2012, Jacob Goldman was denied a tax exemption because his certi?cate of occupancy did not speci?cally allow for a daycare center (Testimony of Scott Schedler, p. 46, lines 12-25.) On May 22, 2012, Jacob Goldman ?led a grievance with the Town of Ramapo Assessor's Of?ce. Attached to the grievance application was a new certi?cate of occupancy dated that same day. This certi?cate of occupancy now designated 9 Zeissner Ln. as a two-family dwelling and included a stipulation that "this premises currently has a conforming group family daycare occupying the lower level." (See testimony of Scott Schedler, pp. 46? 48. Emphasis added.) As a result of this 5/22/2012 certi?cate of occupancy and the language contained thereon, Goldman was granted a tax exemption (See testimony of Scott Schedler, p. 48.) The evidence before the Grand Jury, which must be looked at in a light most favorable to the People, supports the conclusion that-this certi?cate of occupancy was false in two respects. First, that this was a two-family dwelling. (See Testimony of Claudia Soperanez, Dawns Kurisko, Scott Schedler and Manny Carmona, as referenced above. above.) Second, the language in the ?stipulation" section of the certi?cate speci?cally states that there was a conforming group family daycare on the lower level of what the certi?cate designates as a two~ family dwelling is false. The defendant testified repeatedly that this was not lawful. Speci?cally, the defendant repeatedly testi?ed that under the Village of Spring Valley Building Code, a home-based occupation, such as a group family daycare, is not permissible in a two?family dwelling and is only permissible in a single family dwelling. (See testimtmy of Walter Booker, pp. 104, 106 and p. 107, lines 17-18 [defendant testi?ed "[o]ur code speci?cally states that you can't have a two?family with a home- based of?ce. It has to be a single In fact, the evidence before the Grand Jury was that in 2014, the defendant told Dawns Kurisko of the Department of Social Services that once the Goldman's put a daycare in their home, 9 Zeissner Lane should have been designated a single family home (See testimony of Dawne Kurisko, p. 17, lines 8-21.) Put on 5/22/2012, the defendant issued a certificate of coatpancy designating 9 Zeissner Ln. as a two-family dwelling with a conforming group family daycare. However, according to the defendant himself, both cannot be true. Either 9 Zeissner Ln. was a two-family dwelling and nothing more or a single family dwelling with a conferming group family daycare. However, the evidence before the members of the Grand Jury was. that on 5/22/2012, Walter Booker issued a certi?cate of occupancy stating that it was both. The evidence before the Grand Jury, in its entirety, further showed why Walter Booker did so, i.e. because Jacob Goldinan needed both to be true. In 2012, Jacob Goldman needed a certi?cate of occupancy that designated his home as a two family dwelling (in order to maintain his ability to operate a second daycare) while at the same time stating that he was permitted to have a daycare located at the same (in order to obtain a tax exemption.) Despite the defendants . admissions both the Dawne Kurisko and the members of the Grand Jury that this would not comply with the code, the defendant issued the same nonetheless. Standing alone, the Grand Jurors could have concluded that this was simply a mistake or oversight by Mr. Booker. However, in light of the other entirety of the evidence presented to them, the Grand Jurors voted a true bill with respect to this certificate of occupancy, ?nding it to be both falsely made and made with fraudulent intent. One South Main Street 0 Suite 500 0 New City, NY 10956 (845) 638-5001 0 Fax (845) 633~5298 rocldandcountydacom ll?28??18 09:19 Of note, the evidence before the Grand Jury was that the 5/22/2012 certi?cate of occupancy was - the only certi?cate fer 9 Zeissner Ln. issued by Walter Booker that speci?cally stated that the residence was operating a daycare (See testimony of Walter Booker, pp. 135-136 and p. 138.) This is signi?cant, when looking at the evidence. in it's entirety, in that 2012 was the only year that Jacob Goldman's tax exemption was denied for this reason. As will become clear below, the evidence before the Grand Jury supported the conclusion that each May, Walter Booker would issue a new certi?cate (unSupported by a permit) or a letter, tailored speci?cally to allow Rabbi Goldman to obtain a tax exemption while still maintaining a two-family dwelling designation which allowed him to operate two daycare facilities out of his home. The Grand Jury's conclusion that this was done fraudulently and intentionally is supported by Mr. Becker's testimony and his statement to DaWne Kurisko admitting his knowledge that a two- family dwelling with a home-based occupation is not permissible under the Spring Valley code. The Certi?cate ofOccuDancv Dated 5/14/2013 (Counts 9 and 12) Regarding these counts,-the evidence before the Grand Jury, in addition to the above, was as follows: In 2013, Rabbi Goldman's application for a tax exemption was denied because his certi?cate of occupancy did not detail the existence of a ?study." In May of 201 3, Rabbi Goldman directed the . attention of the Board of Assessment Review to a new certi?cate of occupancy issued by Walter Booker which now included a 'fstudy.? The tax exemption was then granted (See testimony of Scott Schedler, pp. 51 It is undisputed that Walter Booker handwrote the word "study" into the 2013 certificate of occupancy (See testimony of Walter Booker, p. 155, lines 3-12 and testimony of Manny Carmona, pp. 51-53.) It is also undisputed that this certi?cate of occupancy was not based on a permit as is the normal course of business in the Village of Spring Valley (See testimony of Walter Booker, p. 135, lines 1-24.) Nor did the certi?cate of occupancy make mention of the previously noted (See Grand Jury Exhibit 5/22/2012 certi?cate of occupancy submitted to assessor) daycare center (Testimony of Walter Booker, p. 138, lines 12-23.) The evidence before the Grand Jury regarding these counts supported the Grand Jury's true bill. In 2012, Jacob Goldman needed a certi?cate of occupancy that designated his home as a two-family dwelling (in order to maintain his ability to operate a second daycare) while at the same time stating that the home included a study (in order to obtain a tax exemption.) Walter Booker provided it and it was used to obtain another tax exemption. The Letter Dated 5/20/2014 While not charged as a false document for the purposes of Falsifying Business Records, the facts surrounding the letter given to Rabbi Goldman in May of 2014 and subsequently submitted to the Town of Ramapo Assessor are very relevant when evaluating the Grand Jury?s true bill for the above charges. The evidence before the Grand Jury was undisputed that On May 20, 2014, the most current certi?cate of occupancy for 9 Zeissner Ln. was for a two-family dWelling (See testimony of Marmy Carmona, P. 76; testimony of Walter Booker, p. 105.) Mr. Booker further testi?ed that in Order for the home to be converted back to a single-family home, a permit would have to be issued and alterations would have had to be made (See testimony of Walter Booker, p. 105 and pp. 146-147.) Yet the evidence before the Grand Jury was that on May 20, 2014, Walter Booker authored a letter, which was attached to the 2014 tax exemptiun grievance application, stating that while the previous use of the dwelling was as a two-family dwelling, the tenant in the second dWelling has been diSplaced and as such the dwelling is now a single family dwelling with a heme-based occupation. A use which would, if true, One South Main Street 0 Suite 500 9 New City, NY 10956 0 (845) 638-5001 0 Fax (845) 638-5298 0 rocldandcountydanom "uw' - has} 16 0951's iron- T-568 F?02?l confonn with the requirements of the Village of Spring Valley building code. This is contradictory to Mr. Booker?s testimony before the members of the Grand Jury where he noted that even it" the second dwelling in a two-family dwelling did not have tenants, it continues to me a twofamily dwelling (See testimony of Walter Booker, p. 172, lines 8-13.) The evidence presented supports the conclusion that this again is yet another instance of Walter Booker taking of?cial action in an effort to aid Rabbi Goldman in maintaining his two-family dwelling status (in order to maintain his ability to operate a second daycare) while at the same time writing a letter aiding Rabbi Goldman in procuring a tax exemption. The evidence supported the conclusion that Mr. Booker?s letter mislead the Ramapo Town Assessor as to the current designation of the property, yet again aiding Rabbi Goldman in his endeavor to gain a tax exemption for a home-based occupation which is not permissible in a two-family dwelling. Put plainly, as a result of Mr. Booker?s official acts, as far as the Department of Social Services was informed, 9 Zeissner Lane was a two-family dwelling in May of 2014 (See Grand Jury exhibit Certi?cate of Occupancy dated 5/ 14/2013). Yet as far as the Ramapo Towo Assessor was concerned, in May of2014 9 Zeissner Lane was a single-family home with a home~based occupation. Of note, the evidence before the Grand Jury showed that approximately one month after writing this letter, Mr. Booker told Dawne Kurisko, an investigator for the RocklandCounty Department of Social Services, that he did not know whether or not this pmpeity was a one or two-family dwelling after she eXpressed her concerns over the preperry?s designatiOn (See testimony of Dawns Kurisko, pp. 22?23.) - - Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Booker testi?ed repeatedly that his duties do not include . reporting or recording how a property is being used but rather would Only report or record the permitted use of a property (See testimony of Walter Booker, p. 95, lines 7-12.) Mr. Booker further testi?ed that he Would never write a letter to the assessor or anyone else stating how a property is being used (See testimony of Walter Booker, p. 127, Lines 5-11.) This is contradictory to the letter he authored on 5/20/2012 on behalf of Rabbi Goldman, a contradiction Booker admitted later in his testimony (See testimony of Walter Booker, p. 149, line 2 p. 150, line 16.) As detailed above, the evidence before the Grand Jury was that he also made this exception fer Rabbi Goldman on the certi?cate of occupancy dated 5/22/2012. Conclusion In answering the court?s inquiry as to how the various documents were false, the evidence presented to the'Grand Jury, if taken as true and looked at in the light most favorable to the People, supported the following: Counts 7 and 10 The back-dated certi?cate of occupancy was false because a. it represented that Walter Booker insPected the premises on 9/23/2011; and b. It represented that the building was a two-family dwelling when inspected on that date. - Counts 8 and 11 The certi?cate of occuPancy dated 5/22/2012 was false because a. It represented that the building was a two?family dwelling, contrary to the credible evidence before the Grand Jury; and b. It represented that this two-family dwelling had a ?conforming? group family daycare, contrary to defendant?s One South Main Street Suite 500 - New City, NY 10956 - {845) 638-5001 . Fax (845) 638-5298 0 11?28-?18 09:19 ridi? admission before the Grand Jury and to Dawne Kurisko that said use is not permitted in a two-family dWelling. Counts 9 and 12 The certi?cate of occupancy dated 5/14/2013 was false because it represented that the building was a two-family dwelling, contrary to the credible evidence before the Grand Jury. Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter and for affording this office the opportunity to address these issues. I can be reached directly at (845) 638~5747 should you haVe any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Ct Richard K. Moran ?Eirecutive Assistant District Attorney ?mh-n- d? . Cc: William Gerard, Counsel for the Defendant One South Main Street 0 Suite 500 . New City, NY 10956 (845) 638-5001 . Fax (845) 638-5298 rocklandcountydaxom WILLIAM A. GERARD, ESQ. Tel. (845) 365?3121 E-mail: wmgerard@verizon.net Fax (845) 365-4036 Hon. David S. Zuckerman, A.J.S.C. December 2, 2016 Rockland County Court One South Main Street New City, NY. 10956 Re: People Walter G. Booker Indictment No. 2016-186 Dear Judge Zuckerman: I write on behalf of defendant, Walter Booker, to respond to the Court's letter of October 3, 2016 and Mr. Moran?s letter of November 28, 2016. GRAND LARCENY ISSUE The people are to be commended for conceding the insuf?ciency of the grand larceny counts contained in the indictment. It appears that the indictment on the grand larceny charges is inextricably intertwined with the indictment on the other counts involving allegedly false instruments, because the case was successfully presented to the grand jury as a scheme to accomplish a grand larceny by doing improper things with the property documents. As a result, it cannot now be maintained that defendants' indictment on counts related to false instruments was unaffected by the successful presentation of the faulty grand larceny counts. Therefore, the clear possibility of resulting prejudice from combining the charges suggests that the entire indictment should be dismissed. Dismissal of the indictment is justi?ed on this ground alone, and is also appropriate, considering the other existing irregularities and defects addressed below. FALSITY ISSUE Introduction In his letter Mr. Moran makes a thorough presentation of the purported facts and law, but I have legitimate disagreement with just about everything asserted. For instance, throughout his argument Mr. Moran relies on the claim that any Certi?cate must be based on a permit, but this is simply not the case. Similar misunderstandings and misperceptions permeate Mr. Moran's response but fortunately, determination of the issues presented does not require me to address and resolve every such error at this stage. Character of the Premises A major issue in this case is a disagreement over whether this residence was a one-family structure or a two-family structure during the various time periods involved. The defendant testi?ed that he issued several Certi?cates of Occupancy for this structure as a two-family, while Mr. Carmona and other witnesses apparently testi?ed that they believed it to be a one-family. Quite obviously, the difference between a one family and a two-family dwelling is not a matter of credibility, nor is it dependent on the number of witnesses. It is instead an entirely legal issue, which depends upon interpretations of speci?c provisions of the Village of Spring Valley Code, as applied to the interior con?guration at a particular moment. While the resulting indictment shows that the grand jury sided with the People's witnesses and concluded that the premises was a one-family structure, it does not appear that they were properly instructed on the law in this regard. Based on my conversations with Mr. Moran, they did not receive any legal instructions from the Court or the District Attorney that would allow them to differentiate one type of structure from the other. Without such instructions, the grand jury was without the proper framework to reach their own conclusion as to the true character of the premises, and must therefore have relied instead upon the legal conclusions stated by the People's grand jury witnesses. An indictment based solely on the erroneous legal conclusions of grand jury Witnesses is clearly insuf?cient. Impossibility In order to show the defendant made a false entry in a business record with the intent to defraud, the People rely upon several Certi?cates of Occupancy issued over time by the defendant for a two-family structure, which they claim allowed the co-defendant to obtain an undeserved tax exemption for the entire structure. The People claim that those two-family Certi?cates were knowingly false, and were knowingly issued to help obtain a tax exemption to which the applicant was not entitled. This theory conveniently ignores the fact that the exemption was not available in that particular District for a two-family dwelling, so it is impossible to conclude that the defendant's issuance of two-family was at all intended to help him obtain the exemption he sought (see Af?rmation in support of defendant's motion, pars. 58-65). Further destructive to the People's theory is that the subject premises would have been absolutely entitled to a 100% tax exemption were it indeed a legal one?family dwelling. As previously stated, the undeserved tax exemption was issued in spite of defendant's actions and not because of them, so there is a lack of evidence of intent to defraud. JACOB GOLDMAN While I have no legal relationship with the co-defendant, Jacob Goldman, I feel compelled, as an of?cer of the Court, to suggest that this Court Should closely scrutinize his guilty plea in order to prevent a manifest injustice. If need be, on behalf of defendant, Walter Booker, I am fully prepared to show at trial that no crime took place with respect to the classi?cation of the residence as a two- family structure. In fact, the undisputed record shows that this structure was legally converted from a one-family to a two-family in 2010, and it was Mr. Carmona who mischaracterized this premises as a one-family in September 2011 under the applicable Code provisions. I am unaware of who represented Mr. Goldman before the Court during his plea, but nobody contacted me to ask anything about the case or the pending motion to dismiss. Under the circumstances, and considering the errors in the grand jury proceedings (admitted and otherwise), this Court should assess whether his guilty plea should be ?lrther evaluated. Thank you for your courtesy and assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, William A. Gerard PLEASE REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: 71 Woods Road, PO. Box 717, Palisades, New York 10964