David Juergens, for Appellant.
Wendy Evans Lehmann, for Respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant, a bank loan officer, was convicted of larceny by false pretenses for obtaining money from the bank by intentionally making material misrepresentations on which the bank relied in transferring the funds to him (see, P.L. § 155.05[2][a]; People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 362; People v Churchill, 47 NY2d 151). Defendant's conviction is sustainable on the basis of the ample circumstantial evidence that he and a co-conspirator colluded to deceive the bank while appearing to comply with its procedures and loan requirements. Among other things, the evidence showed that, with defendant's knowledge, the co-conspirator intentionally made false representations and misstatements on loan applications. Defendant then proceeded to misrepresent his co- conspirator's financial status to colleagues at the bank, inducing them to co-approve the loans beyond the limit of defendant's own lending authority. There was additional evidence that, by initialing his approval on checks drawn on his co-conspirator's overdrawn account, defendant induced colleagues to cash these checks.
Finally, the bank's employee-agents testifed that they had, in fact, relied on defendant's misrepresentations as to his co-conspirator's credit standing in recommending that the bank approve his loans, all of which eventually went into default, and to cash his checks for considerable amounts on an account containing insufficient funds. Since the reliance of its agents may be imputed to the victimized bank (see, People v Termotto [decided herewith]; Oliner v Mid-Town Properties, 2 NY2d 63, 64; Seneca Wire & Mfg. Co. v Leach & Co., 247 NY 1, 6), the People's larceny charge was adequately established. Defendant's remaining contentions are lacking in merit.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order affirmed in a memorandum. Acting Chief Judge Simons and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Bellacosa and Smith concur.