Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. Mattocks

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 30, 2009PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Graffeo, J.

In this case, we are asked whether the forgery provisions of Penal Law article 170 apply to Metropolitan Transportation Authority “MetroCards” that were purposefully bent in order to obtain free fares. We hold that this type of alteration can be prosecuted as a forgery.

I

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is responsible for operating the mass transit system in the New York *329City area. In years past, a person gained access to the subways by purchasing a token and depositing it into a turnstile. This mechanical means of entry was eventually replaced…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. People v. BurtonNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
  2. People v. BergersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
  3. People v. Gilbert Gottlieb & 220 Crescent, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. People v. RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. People v. . AbeelNew York Court of Appeals · 1905

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. People v. CajigasNew York Court of Appeals · 2012
  2. People v. WashingtonAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2015
  3. People v. FranovNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. People v. McFarlaneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  5. People v. SafranAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API