=================================================================

Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or e

publ i cat i on i n t he New Yor k Repor t s.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No. 72
The Peopl e &c. ,
Respondent ,
v.
Raphael Gol b,
Appel l ant .
Ronal d L. Kuby, f or appel l ant .
Vi ncent Ri vel l ese, f or r espondent .
Nat i onal Associ at i on of Cr i mi nal Def ense Lawyer s et
al . , ami ci cur i ae.
ABDUS- SALAAM, J . :
Uni ver si t y of Chi cago Pr of essor Nor man Gol b i s a
schol ar of t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s. Thi s case i nvol ves an i nt er net
campai gn by Gol b' s son, Raphael Gol b, t o at t ack t he i nt egr i t y and
har mt he r eput at i on of ot her Dead Sea Scr ol l s academi cs and
schol ar s, whi l e pr omot i ng t he vi ews of hi s f at her .
- 1-
- 2 - No. 72
To accompl i sh hi s goal of di scr edi t i ng and har mi ng
t hese i ndi vi dual s, def endant , usi ng pseudonyms and i mper sonat i ng
r eal academi cs and schol ar s, sent emai l s t o museum
admi ni st r at or s, academi cs and r epor t er s. He publ i shed anonymous
bl ogs. He concoct ed an el abor at e scheme i n whi ch he used a
pseudonymt o engage one pr of essor i n an emai l exchange, and t hen
i mper sonat ed a di f f er ent schol ar t o cr i t i ci ze t hat pr of essor ' s
emai l s. Def endant i mper sonat ed a New Yor k Uni ver si t y ( NYU)
pr of essor and sent emai l s t o NYU st udent s and NYU deans
i ndi cat i ng t hat t he pr of essor had pl agi ar i zed t he wor k of
Pr of essor Gol b.
A New Yor k Count y gr and j ur y char ged def endant wi t h 51
count s of i dent i t y t hef t , cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on, f or ger y,
aggr avat ed har assment and unaut hor i zed use of a comput er . He
pr oceeded t o a j ur y t r i al , wher e 31 count s wer e submi t t ed f or t he
j ur y' s consi der at i on. The j ur y convi ct ed on 30 count s: t wo count s
of i dent i t y t hef t i n t he second degr ee; 14 count s of cr i mi nal
i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee; 10 count s of f or ger y i n t he
t hi r d degr ee; t hr ee count s of aggr avat ed har assment i n t he second
degr ee; and one count of unaut hor i zed use of a comput er .
Def endant was sent enced t o si x mont hs i n j ai l and f i ve year s of
pr obat i on on t he i dent i t y t hef t count s and t o concur r ent l esser
t er ms on t he r emai ni ng count s. The Appel l at e Di vi si on modi f i ed
t he Supr eme Cour t j udgment t o t he ext ent of vacat i ng t he i dent i t y
- 2-
- 3 - No. 72
t hef t convi ct i on i n t he f i r st count of t he i ndi ct ment and
di smi ssi ng t hat count , and ot her wi se af f i r mi ng t he j udgment ( 102
AD3d 601 [ 1st Dept 2013] ) . A J udge of t hi s Cour t gr ant ed
def endant l eave t o appeal ( 20 NY3d 1099 [ 2013] ) . For t he r easons
t hat f ol l ow, we af f i r mt he convi ct i ons f or ni ne count s of
cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee and al l of t he
convi ct i ons f or f or ger y. We vacat e t he convi ct i on f or i dent i t y
t hef t i n t he second degr ee; f i ve of t he convi ct i ons f or cr i mi nal
i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee; al l of t he convi ct i ons f or
aggr avat ed har assment i n t he second degr ee, and t he convi ct i on
f or unaut hor i zed use of a comput er .
I .
The Dead Sea Scr ol l s and Def endant ' s I nt er net Campai gn
As was expl ai ned at t he t r i al , t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s ar e
a col l ect i on of anci ent r el i gi ous wr i t i ngs dat i ng f r omt he second
and t hi r d cent ur y B. C. E. t o t he f i r st cent ur y C. E.
1
They wer e
di scover ed i n 1948 i n caves near Qumr an, i n t he West Bank.
Nor man Gol b, def endant ' s f at her , i s a pr of essor at t he Uni ver si t y
of Chi cago, and a schol ar on t he subj ect of t he Scr ol l s. Ther e
i s di sagr eement among schol ar s and exper t s about who wr ot e t he
Scr ol l s. One vi ew, known as t he Qumr an- Sect ar i an t heor y, or
Sect ar i an t heor y, i s t hat t he Scr ol l s wer e wr i t i ngs of a J ewi sh
1
B. C. E. ( Bef or e t he Common Er a) and C. E. ( t he Common Er a)
ar e t he equi val ent of B. C. and A. D. , r espect i vel y.
- 3-
- 4 - No. 72
sect , l i vi ng i n or near Qumr an.
Nor man Gol b and ot her s di sagr ee wi t h t he Qumr an-
Sect ar i an t heor y. They bel i eve t hat t he Scr ol l s wer e wr i t i ngs of
var i ous gr oups and t hat t he wr i t i ngs wer e r escued f r oml i br ar i es
i n J er usal emand br ought t o t he caves f or saf ekeepi ng at t he t i me
of t he si ege and sacki ng of t he ci t y by Roman t r oops i n 70
C. E. ( t he J er usal eml i br ar i es t heor y) . Pr of essor Gol b chal l enges
t he Qumr an- Sect ar i an t heor y as unsuppor t ed by any act ual
evi dence. I n hi s 1995 book, Who Wr ot e t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s?,
Pr of essor Gol b di scusses not onl y t he hi st or y of Scr ol l r esear ch,
but cr i t i ci zes what he bel i eves t o be unet hi cal r esear ch
pr act i ces r egar di ng t he Scr ol l s.
Begi nni ng i n Sept ember 2006, t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s
became t he subj ect of a ser i es of museumexhi bi t s. Def endant
engaged i n an i nt er net campai gn t o cr i t i ci ze t hose i nvol ved i n
t he exhi bi t s because, i n def endant ' s opi ni on, t he exhi bi t s di d
not pr esent hi s f at her ' s t heor i es about t he or i gi n of t he
Scr ol l s. One of def endant ' s t ar get s was Rober t Car gi l l , who at
t he t i me was a gr aduat e st udent at t he Uni ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a
i n Los Angel es ( UCLA) wor ki ng t owar d hi s Ph. D i n near east er n
l anguages and cul t ur e. Car gi l l had publ i shed on t he t opi c of t he
Scr ol l s. I n 2007, t he Scr ol l s wer e put on exhi bi t at t he San
Di ego Nat ur al Hi st or y Museum. For use at t hat exhi bi t , Car gi l l
cr eat ed a di gi t al movi e cal l ed " Anci ent Qumr an, " whi ch was a
- 4-
- 5 - No. 72
si l ent t our of t he si t e wher e t he Scr ol l s wer e di scover ed, and he
wr ot e a scr i pt t o be r ead i n conj unct i on wi t h t he movi e. The
scr i pt di d not descr i be Pr of essor Gol b' s vi ew of t he Scr ol l s'
or i gi ns.
Usi ng pseudonyms, def endant sent emai l s t o UCLA medi a
addr esses i ncl udi ng news@medi a. ucl a. edu, a UCLA pr of essor ,
Car gi l l ' s doct or al advi sor , many ot her " ucl a. edu" addr esses, and
an ent er t ai nment company wi t h whi ch Car gi l l had si gned a
cont r act , cr i t i ci zi ng Car gi l l and quest i oni ng hi s schol ar shi p.
Car gi l l t est i f i ed t hat ever yone i n hi s depar t ment , peopl e i n t he
pr ess r oom, t he Pr ovost of UCLA, and hi s dean asked hi m" what t he
hel l i s goi ng on, what i s t hi s al l about ?" On a number of
occasi ons, def endant used an anonymous bl og t o post hi s
gr i evances about t he San Di ego exhi bi t and t he Car gi l l movi e.
When t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s exhi bi t moved t o Ral ei gh,
Nor t h Car ol i na, def endant t ar get ed St ephen Gor anson, a l i br ar y
cl er k at Duke Uni ver si t y who had publ i shed ar t i cl es on t he
Scr ol l s. Gor anson di sagr eed wi t h Pr of essor Gol b' s t heor i es and
cr i t i ci zed t hemi n publ i c i nt er net f or ums. I n J ul y 2008, wr i t i ng
as " Pet er Kauf man, Ph. D. , " def endant separ at el y emai l ed t he
Pr ovost and t he Pr esi dent of Duke Uni ver si t y, as wel l as
Gor anson' s super vi sor at t he l i br ar y, compl ai ni ng about
Gor anson' s pur por t ed i nt er net at t acks on Pr of essor Gol b and
suggest i ng t hat t hey consi der whet her t hi s conduct was
- 5-
- 6 - No. 72
appr opr i at e f or a Duke empl oyee. The Pr ovost r esponded t hat a
super vi sor was speaki ng t o Gor anson and advi si ng hi mof hi s
obl i gat i ons. Def endant al so cr eat ed an emai l account under t he
name of " st eve. gor anson@gmai l . com. "
Def endant al so under t ook an el abor at e scheme i nvol vi ng
t he i mper sonat i on of Dead Sea Scr ol l s schol ar and r et i r ed Har var d
Pr of essor Fr ank Cr oss. The f i r st l ayer of t he scheme was t o
assume t he pseudonymof " J er ome Cooper " t o engage i n an emai l
exchange wi t h Uni ver si t y of Nor t h Car ol i na Pr of essor Bar t Ehr man
( who had been sl at ed t o l ect ur e at t he Ral ei gh exhi bi t ) about t he
or i gi n of t he Scr ol l s. Def endant t hen anonymousl y publ i shed a
bl og denounci ng t he sel ect i on of Ehr man as l ect ur er and
publ i shi ng t he emai l s f r omPr of essor Ehr man t o " J er ome Cooper , "
whi ch def endant sai d Cooper had been " good enough t o f or war d t o
me. " Def endant ' s next st ep was t o cr eat e t he emai l addr ess
" f r ank. cr oss2@gmai l . com" and send f our separ at e but i dent i cal
messages t o f our Uni ver si t y of Nor t h Car ol i na schol ar s. I n t hose
emai l s f r omt he " Fr ank Cr oss" emai l addr ess, def endant at t ached
l i nks t o hi s anonymous bl og ent r i es cont ai ni ng Ehr man' s emai l s,
and st at ed t hat " Bar t " had " put hi s f oot i n hi s mout h agai n. " He
si gned t hose emai l s " Best , Fr ank Cr oss. "
The Scr ol l s wer e put on exhi bi t at t he J ewi sh Museumi n
New Yor k Ci t y i n t he Fal l of 2008, and NYU Pr of essor Lawr ence
Schi f f man was schedul ed as a l ect ur er . Def endant used t he
- 6-
- 7 - No. 72
pseudonym" Pet er Kauf man" t o publ i sh an ar t i cl e about Schi f f man
on t he soci al news websi t e NowPubl i c ent i t l ed " Pl agi ar i smand t he
Dead Sea Scr ol l s: Di d NYU depar t ment chai r man pi l f er f r omChi cago
hi st or i an' s wor k?" Def endant as " Kauf man" wr ot e of a " l i t t l e-
known case of appar ent academi c quacker y. " He compl ai ned of
Schi f f man' s f ai l ur e t o cr edi t Pr of essor Gol b f or i deas expr essed
i n Schi f f man' s ar t i cl es about t he Scr ol l s, and Schi f f man' s
r epeat ed pl agi ar i sms of Gol b' s wor k.
Usi ng NYU comput er s, def endant sent emai l s f r omanot her
account he cr eat ed - " l ar r y. schi f f man@gmai l . com" - t o f our of
Schi f f man' s st udent s and mul t i pl e NYU addr esses of Schi f f man' s
col l eagues t hat i ncl uded a l i nk t o t he ar t i cl e. The emai l s
st at ed, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat " someone i s i nt ent on exposi ng a
mi nor f ai l i ng of mi ne t hat dat es back al most f i f t een year s ago"
and t hat " t hi s i s my car eer at st ake. " He si gned t hose emai l s
" Lawr ence Schi f f man. " Addi t i onal l y, def endant sent i dent i cal
emai l s f r omt he Schi f f man emai l addr ess t o t he Pr ovost of NYU and
t he Dean of NYU Gr aduat e School of Ar t s and Sci ence. Def endant ,
as Schi f f man, asked what act i on he coul d t ake " t o count er char ges
of pl agi ar i smt hat have been r ai sed agai nst me" and st at ed:
" Appar ent l y, someone i s i nt ent on exposi ng a
f ai l i ng of mi ne t hat dat es back al most
f i f t een year s ago. I t i s t r ue t hat I shoul d
have ci t ed Dr . Gol b' s ar t i cl es when usi ng hi s
ar gument s, and i t i s t r ue t hat I
mi sr epr esent ed hi s i deas. But t hi s i s si mpl y
t he pol i t i cs of Dead Sea Scr ol l s st udi es. I f
I had gi ven cr edi t t o t hi s man I woul d have
- 7-
- 8 - No. 72
been banned f r omconf er ences ar ound t he
wor l d. " .
He si gned t hose emai l s " Lawr ence Schi f f man, pr of essor . "
NYU' s Seni or Vi ce Pr ovost r esponded t o t hi s emai l ,
st at i ng t hat he had assi gned t he mat t er t o a dean f or f ur t her
i nvest i gat i on. Def endant , as " Schi f f man" f or war ded t hat emai l f r om
t he Vi ce Pr ovost ( i ncl udi ng def endant ' s emai l t o t he Pr ovost ) t o
f i ve NYU school newspaper emai l addr esses, aski ng t hat t hey not
ment i on t hi s mat t er and st at i ng t hat hi s " car eer i s at st ake. " He
si gned t hose emai l s " Lawr ence Schi f f man. "
I n t he Fal l of 2008, t he Scr ol l s exhi bi t was schedul ed
t o move t o t he Royal Ont ar i o Museum( ROM) i n Tor ont o. Dr . J onat han
Sei del , a r abbi i n Or egon and a pr of essor of J udai c st udi es at t he
Uni ver si t y of Or egon, had st udi ed wi t h Pr of essor Schi f f man at NYU.
Def endant cr eat ed t he emai l addr ess " sei del . j onat han@gmai l . com" and
sent an emai l t o t he Boar d of Tr ust ees at t he ROM, bl i nd copyi ng
numer ous ot her i ndi vi dual s at t he museum. That emai l , among ot her
t hi ngs, i ncl uded l i nks t o ar t i cl es concer ni ng t he San Di ego
exhi bi t i on of t he Scr ol l s and cr i t i ci smby Pr of essor Gol b of t he
exhi bi t , whi ch was cur at ed by Dr . Ri sa Levi t t Kohn, t he same
i ndi vi dual who was cur at i ng t he exhi bi t at t he ROM. The emai l
st at ed t hat " [ t ] he San Di ego exhi bi t or s set out t o conf use t he
publ i c" and descr i bed a quot ed st at ement f r omDr . Kohn def endi ng
t he exhi bi t whi ch she had cur at ed as " shocki ngl y obscur ant i st . . .
f or someone i nvol ved i n cur at i ng a museumexhi bi t at t he ROM. " He
- 8-
- 9 - No. 72
si gned t hose emai l s " Wi t h best r egar ds, J onat han Sei del . "
Usi ng t he Sei del emai l addr ess, def endant al so sent an
emai l t o Dr . Kohn. I t cont ai ned a l i nk t o def endant ' s ( anonymous)
bl og about Dr . Kohn and Mi chael Hager , t he di r ect or of t he San
Di ego museumwher e t he Scr ol l s had been exhi bi t ed. The bl og
poi nt ed out t hat Hager had been def endi ng Dr . Kohn and t he San
Di ego exhi bi t . I t cr i t i ci zed Hager and Kohn, and poi nt ed out t hat
Pr of essor Gol b had subj ect ed t he San Di ego exhi bi t t o a " sear i ng
cr i t i que. " The emai l sought Dr . Kohn' s opi ni on on t he t wo t heor i es
about t he Scr ol l s and asked i f she was pl anni ng t o answer Pr of essor
Gol b' s cr i t i que. I t was si gned " Wi t h best wi shes, J onat han Sei del . "
The same day t hat he sent t he emai l t o Dr . Kohn,
def endant sent anot her emai l f r om" Sei del " t o 79 Dead Sea Scr ol l s
schol ar s, aski ng f or hel p i n pr epar i ng a r esponse t o mi si nf or mat i on
whi ch was bei ng spr ead ar ound t he i nt er net . He i ncl uded a l i nk t o
hi s anonymous bl og, and a l i nk and a quot at i on f r oman ar t i cl e i n
t he Fr ench newspaper Le Monde, whi ch def endant ( as Sei del ) st at ed
was " out r ageous. " The quot e f r omLe Monde was t hat " t he connect i on
bet ween t he Essenes, who wer e t hought t o have wr i t t en t he scr ol l s,
and Qumr an has been r educed t o not hi ng, j ust as t he maj or Amer i can
hi st or i an and pal eogr apher N. Gol b had al r eady wr i t t en. " The emai l
st at ed t hat " t hese l i es about t he Chi cago f i l t h must be answer ed as
qui ckl y as possi bl e, so pl ease l et me know i f you' r e wi l l i ng t o
hel p out . . . " I n cont r ast t o hi s emai l t o Dr . Kohn, whi ch
- 9-
- 10 - No. 72
pr omot ed t he Gol b t heor y, t hi s emai l appear s t o be cal l i ng
Pr of essor Gol b " Chi cago f i l t h. " I t was si gned " Best , J onat han S. "
Def endant al so used t he Sei del emai l addr ess t o cont act
appr oxi mat el y 85 i ndi vi dual s, many of whomhad uni ver si t y emai l
addr esses, ur gi ng t hemt o " condemn t he cont i nui ng f i l t h f r om
Chi cago, j ust as Dr . St ephen Gor anson of Duke Uni ver si t y has had
t he cour age t o do. " That t oo was si gned " Best , J onat han S. "
I I .
Cr i mi nal I mper sonat i on i n t he Second Degr ee
Def endant was convi ct ed of 14 count s of cr i mi nal
i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee. A per son i s gui l t y of t hi s
cr i me when he or she " i mper sonat es anot her and does an act i n such
assumed char act er wi t h i nt ent t o obt ai n a benef i t or t o i nj ur e or
def r aud anot her " ( Penal Law 190. 25) . The cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on
count s r el at ed t o def endant ' s act i ons agai nst Schi f f man, Gor anson,
Sei del and Cr oss. Al t hough r equest ed t o do so by def endant , t he
t r i al cour t di d not l i mi t t he st at ut or y t er ms " benef i t " or " i nj ur e"
i n i t s char ge t o t he j ur y. The Appel l at e Di vi si on hel d t hat " [ t ] he
cour t was under no obl i gat i on t o l i mi t t he def i ni t i ons of " i nj ur e"
or " def r aud" - t er ms used i n t he f or ger y and cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on
st at ut es - t o t angi bl e har ms such as f i nanci al har m" ( 102 AD3d at
602, ci t i ng Peopl e v Kase, 75 AD2d 532, 537- 538 [ 1st Dept 1980] ,
af f d 53 NY2d 989 [ 1981] ) . Def endant mai nt ai ns t hat t he t r i al
cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o pr oper l y l i mi t and def i ne t he t er ms " i nj ur e" and
- 10-
- 11 - No. 72
" benef i t " const i t ut ed r ever si bl e er r or because t he j ur y coul d have
i nt er pr et ed t he st at ut e as capt ur i ng any benef i t or har m. Thus,
ar gues def endant , when l i t er al l y anything can be a l egal l y
cogni zabl e benef i t or har m, one can be f ound gui l t y of vi ol at i ng
t hi s l aw i f one, f or exampl e, si mpl y causes hur t f eel i ngs, mocks or
cr i t i ci zes. Si mi l ar l y, says def endant , a benef i t coul d be any gai n
or advant age, no mat t er how sl i ght .
Cases appl yi ng Penal Law 190. 25 have t r adi t i onal l y
i nvol ved monet ar y f r aud or i nt er f er ence wi t h gover nment oper at i ons
( see e. g. Peopl e v Sanchez, 84 NY2d 440 [ 1994] [ i mper sonat i on of an
FBI agent ] ; Peopl e v Hooks, 71 AD3d 1184 [ 4t h Dept 2010] [ af t er
damagi ng vi ct i m' s vehi cl e, def endant cal l ed pol i ce st at i on,
i dent i f yi ng her sel f as vi ct i m, i nf or mi ng t hemt hat she di d not want
t o pr ess char ges] ; Peopl e v Nawr ocki , 163 AD2d 887 [ 4t h Dept [ 1990]
[ def endant used hi s br ot her ' s name, soci al secur i t y number and
empl oyment st at us t o appl y f or and r ecei ve a l oan f r oma f i nance
company] ; Peopl e v Chi ves, 189 Mi sc2d 653 [ 2001] [ convi ct i on f or
f al sel y i dent i f yi ng onesel f t o pol i ce and possessi on of an al t er ed
passpor t ] ; Peopl e v Bent l ey, 78 Mi sc2d 578 [ 1974] [ woman si gned a
f al se name t o a super mar ket cash r egi st er r ecei pt ] ; Peopl e v
Di amond, 77 Mi sc2d 412 [ 1974] [ convi ct i on f or seeki ng t o avoi d an
ar r est by i mper sonat i ng a t r ansi t aut hor i t y conduct or ] ) . The
Appel l at e Di vi si on ci t ed Peopl e v Kase ( 76 AD2d 532 [ 1st Dept
1980] , af f d 53 NY2d 989 [ 1981] ) i n suppor t of i t s hol di ng t hat
- 11-
- 12 - No. 72
" i nj ur y" and " def r aud" i s not l i mi t ed t o t angi bl e har ms such as
f i nanci al har ms i nvol ved t he f i l i ng of a f al se i nst r ument . Ther e,
Kase ar gued t hat Penal Law 190. 25 di d not appl y wher e t he Peopl e
had not demonst r at ed t hat t her e had been a pecuni ar y l oss t o t he
St at e, and t he cour t di sagr eed, f i ndi ng t hat i t i s suf f i ci ent i f
t he f r aud i mpact s t he St at e' s power t o f ul f i l l i t s gover nment al
r esponsi bi l i t i es ( i d. at 532- 533)
Her e, def endant di d not cause any pecuni ar y l oss or
i nt er f er e wi t h gover nment al oper at i ons. Whi l e we agr ee wi t h
def endant t hat t he st at ut or y t er ms " i nj ur e" and " benef i t " cannot be
const r ued t o appl y t o any i nj ur y or benef i t , no mat t er how sl i ght ,
we concl ude t hat i nj ur y t o r eput at i on i s wi t hi n t he " i nj ur y"
cont empl at ed by Penal Law 190. 25. Many peopl e, par t i cul ar l y wi t h
a car eer i n academi a, as r el evant t o t hi s case, val ue t hei r
r eput at i ons at l east as much as t hei r pr oper t y,
2
and we bel i eve t he
Legi sl at ur e i nt ended t hat t he scope of t he st at ut e be br oad enough
t o capt ur e act s i nt ended t o cause i nj ur y t o r eput at i on.
Accor di ngl y, a per son may be f ound gui l t y of cr i mi nal
i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee i f he or she i mper sonat es
anot her wi t h t he i nt ent t o cause a t angi bl e, pecuni ar y i nj ur y t o
2
" Good name i n man and woman, dear my l or d,
I s t he i mmedi at e j ewel of t hei r soul s.
Who st eal s my pur se st eal s t r ash. ' Ti s somet hi ng, not hi ng:
' Twas mi ne, ' t i s hi s, and has been sl ave t o t housands.
But he t hat f i l ches f r omme my good name
Robs me of t hat whi ch not enr i ches hi m
And makes me poor i ndeed. "
( Shakespear e, Ot hel l o, Act I I I , Scene 3. )
- 12-
- 13 - No. 72
anot her , or t he i nt ent t o i nt er f er e wi t h gover nment al oper at i ons
( see e. g. Peopl e v Hooks, 71 AD3d 1184 [ 3r d Dept 2010] ; Peopl e v
Nawr ocki , 163 AD2d 887 [ 4t h Dept [ 1990] ) . I n addi t i on, a per son
who i mper sonat es someone wi t h t he i nt ent t o har mt he r eput at i on of
anot her may be f ound gui l t y of t hi s cr i me. Her e, t her e was
suf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng t hat def endant ' s
emai l s i mper sonat i ng Schi f f man, Sei del and Cr oss wer e mor e t han a
pr ank i nt ended t o cause t empor ar y embar r assment or di scomf i t ur e,
and t hat he act ed wi t h i nt ent t o do r eal har m.
Whi l e we af f i r mmost of t he cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on
convi ct i ons, we hol d t hat t he mer e cr eat i on of emai l account s i n
t he names of Schi f f man, Sei del , Gor anson and Cr oss ( i n cont r ast t o
t he use of t hose account s t o send emai l s) does not const i t ut e
cr i mi nal conduct under Penal Law 190. 25. The mer e cr eat i on of
emai l account s t hat ar e not used does no subst ant i al har mt o
anyone. Addi t i onal l y, t he emai l sent f r omt he Sei del emai l
addr ess t o Dr . Kohn, aski ng her opi ni on on t he di f f er i ng t heor i es
about t he Scr ol l s and whet her she was pl anni ng t o answer Pr of essor
Gol b' s cr i t i que, i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a convi ct i on f or
cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee. Unl i ke t he ot her
emai l s, t hi s emai l sent i n anot her per son' s name does not pr ove
t he r equi si t e i nt ent t o cause i nj ur y, ei t her t o r eput at i on or
ot her wi se. Thus, we vacat e t he convi ct i ons on t hose count s.
I I I .
Aggr avat ed Har assment i n t he Second Degr ee,
Penal Law 240. 30( 1) ( a) pr ovi des t hat " [ a] per son i s
- 13-
- 14 - No. 72
gui l t y of aggr avat ed har assment i n t he second degr ee when, wi t h
i nt ent t o har ass, annoy, t hr eat en or al ar manot her per son, he or
she . . . communi cat es wi t h a per son, anonymousl y or ot her wi se, by
t el ephone, by t el egr aph, or by mai l , or by t r ansmi t t i ng or
del i ver i ng any ot her f or mof wr i t t en communi cat i on, i n a manner
l i kel y t o cause annoyance or al ar m. " We agr ee wi t h def endant t hat
t hi s st at ut e i s unconst i t ut i onal l y vague and over br oad, and t hat
hi s convi ct i on of t hr ee count s of aggr avat ed har assment r el at ed t o
hi s conduct t owar d Schi f f man, Gor anson and Car gi l l must be
vacat ed.
I n Peopl e v Di et ze ( 75 NY2d 47 [ 1989] ) , t hi s Cour t
st r uck down a si mi l ar har assment st at ut e, f or mer Penal Law
240. 25, whi ch pr ohi bi t ed t he use of abusi ve or obscene l anguage
wi t h t he i nt ent t o har ass, annoy or al ar manot her per son. We
det er mi ned t hat t he st at ut e was unconst i t ut i onal under bot h t he
St at e and Feder al Const i t ut i ons, not i ng t hat " any pr oscr i pt i on of
pur e speech must be shar pl y l i mi t ed t o wor ds whi ch, by t hei r
ut t er ance al one, i nf l i ct i nj ur y or t end nat ur al l y t o evoke
i mmedi at e vi ol ence" ( i d. at 52) .
The r easoni ng appl i ed i n Di et ze appl i es equal l y t o our
anal ysi s of Penal Law 240. 30( 1) ( a) . The st at ut e cr i mi nal i zes,
i n br oad st r okes, any communi cat i on t hat has t he i nt ent t o annoy.
Li ke t he har assment st at ut e at i ssue i n Di et ze, " no f ai r r eadi ng"
of t hi s st at ut e' s " unqual i f i ed t er ms suppor t s or even suggest s t he
const i t ut i onal l y necessar y l i mi t at i ons on i t s scope" ( i d. at 52;
see al so Peopl e v Dupont , 107 AD2d 247, 253 [ 1st Dept 1985]
- 14-
- 15 - No. 72
[ obser vi ng t hat t he st at ut e' s vagueness i s appar ent because " [ i ] t
i s not cl ear what i s meant by communi cat i on ' i n a manner l i kel y t o
cause annoyance or al ar m' t o anot her per son" ] ) . And, as i n
Di et ze, " we decl i ne t o i ncor por at e such l i mi t at i ons i nt o t he
st at ut e by j udi ci al const r uct i on" because t hat woul d be
" t ant amount t o whol esal e r evi si on of t he Legi sl at ur e' s enact ment ,
r at her t han pr udent j udi ci al const r uct i on" ( i d. at 53) .
Thr ee f eder al j udges have al r eady f ound t hi s st at ut e
unconst i t ut i onal ( see Vi ves v t he Ci t y of New Yor k, 305 F Supp 2d
289, 299 [ SD NY 2003, Schei ndl i n, J . ] , r evd on ot her gr ounds 405
F3d 115 [ 2d Ci r 2004] [ " wher e speech i s r egul at ed or pr oscr i bed
based on i t s cont ent , t he scope of t he ef f ect ed speech must be
cl ear l y def i ned" ] ; see al so Vi ves 405 F3d 115, 123- 124 [ 2d Ci r
2004, Car damone, J . , di ssent i ng i n par t , concur r i ng i n par t ]
[ Penal Law 240. 30( 1) unconst i t ut i onal on i t s f ace and as
appl i ed] ; Schl ager v Phi l l i ps, 985 F Supp 419, 421 [ SD NY 1987,
Br i eant , J . ] , r evd on ot her gr ounds, 166 F3d 439 [ 2d Ci r 1999]
[ st at ut e i s " ut t er l y r epugnant t o t he Fi r st Amendment of t he
Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on and al so unconst i t ut i onal f or
vagueness" ] ) .
Accor di ngl y, we concl ude t hat Penal Law 240. 30( 1) i s
unconst i t ut i onal under bot h t he St at e and Feder al Const i t ut i ons,
and we vacat e def endant s' convi ct i ons on t hese count s.
I V.
The Convi ct i ons f or For ger y i n t he Thi r d Degr ee, I dent i t y Thef t i n
t he Second Degr ee and Unaut hor i zed Use of a Comput er
- 15-
- 16 - No. 72
" A per son i s gui l t y of f or ger y i n t he t hi r d degr ee when,
wi t h i nt ent t o def r aud, decei ve or i nj ur e anot her , he f al sel y
makes, compl et es or al t er s a wr i t t en i nst r ument " ( Penal Law
170. 05 ) . Ther e was suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show t hat def endant
decei ved peopl e by sendi ng emai l s f r omaccount s i n t he names of
Schi f f man, Sei del and Cr oss, and accor di ngl y we af f i r mhi s
convi ct i ons on t hose count s.
However , we vacat e t he convi ct i ons on t he r emai ni ng
count s of unaut hor i zed use of a comput er and i dent i t y t hef t i n t he
second degr ee. Under Penal Law 156. 05, " [ a] per son i s gui l t y of
unaut hor i zed use of a comput er when he or she knowi ngl y uses,
causes t o be used, or accesses a comput er , comput er ser vi ce, or
comput er net wor k wi t hout aut hor i zat i on. " The t er m" wi t hout
aut hor i zat i on" i s def i ned as " t o access a comput er . . . wi t hout
t he per mi ssi on of t he owner . . . or af t er act ual not i ce t o such
per son t hat such use or access was wi t hout per mi ssi on . . . "
( Penal Law 156. 00 [ 8] ) .
Def endant asser t s t hat he had per mi ssi on t o access t he
NYU comput er s as an al umnus who j oi ned t he " Fr i ends of Bobst
Li br ar y Pr ogr am. " The Peopl e ar gue t hat usi ng t he comput er t o
commi t a cr i me cannot be an aut hor i zed use. However , t he
def i ni t i ons and wor di ng of t he st at ut e and t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y
i ndi cat e t hat t he st at ut e i s i nt ended t o r each a per son who
accesses a comput er syst emwi t hout per mi ssi on ( i . e. , a hacker ) and
t he l anguage does not appear t o encompass def endant ' s conduct
her e. " [ I ] f t wo const r uct i ons of a cr i mi nal st at ut e ar e pl ausi bl e,
- 16-
- 17 - No. 72
t he one mor e f avor abl e t o def endant shoul d be adopt ed i n
accor dance wi t h t he r ul e of l eni t y" ( Peopl e v Gr een, 68 NY2d 151,
153 [ 1986] [ i nt er nal ci t at i on and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed] ) .
Thus, t he Peopl e di d not sust ai n t hei r bur den of pr oof t hat
def endant was gui l t y of unaut hor i zed use of t he NYU comput er s, and
we t her ef or e vacat e def endant ' s convi ct i on under Penal Law
156. 05.
Last l y, as per t i nent her e, a per son commi t s i dent i t y
t hef t i n t he second degr ee " when he or she knowi ngl y and wi t h
i nt ent t o def r aud assumes t he i dent i t y of anot her per son by
pr esent i ng hi msel f or her sel f as t hat ot her per son, or by act i ng
as t hat ot her per son or by usi ng per sonal i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on
of t hat ot her per son, and t her eby" " commi t s or at t empt s t o commi t
a f el ony" ( Penal Law 190. 79 ( 3) ) . The at t empt ed f el ony at i ssue
her e i s f i r st - degr ee f al si f yi ng of t he busi ness r ecor ds of NYU.
That cr i me i s commi t t ed when a per son " commi t s t he cr i me of
f al si f yi ng busi ness r ecor ds i n t he second degr ee, and when hi s
i nt ent t o def r aud i ncl uded an i nt ent t o commi t anot her cr i me or t o
ai d or conceal t he commi ssi on t her eof " ( Penal Law 175. 00 [ 2] ,
175. 10) . Accor di ng t o t he Peopl e, def endant sought t o f al si f y NYU
busi ness r ecor ds by manuf act ur i ng a subt l e admi ssi on of pl agi ar i sm
pur por t edl y f r omSchi f f man, wi t h t he i nt ent t hat NYU woul d open an
i nvest i gat i on of Schi f f man. Al t hough def endant sent damni ng
emai l s i n Schi f f man' s name t o NYU addr esses, t hat does not
const i t ut e t he cr eat i on or f al si f i cat i on of an NYU busi ness r ecor d
t hat i s " kept or mai nt ai ned by an ent er pr i se f or t he pur pose of
- 17-
- 18 - No. 72
evi denci ng or r ef l ect i ng i t s condi t i on or act i vi t y" and t he Peopl e
have not poi nt ed t o any pr oof t hat def endant f al si f i ed any such
r ecor ds. Because t her e i s i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t t hi s
convi ct i on, i t must be vacat ed.
Accor di ngl y, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul d
be modi f i ed by vacat i ng t he convi ct i ons f or Count s 2, 3, 5, 23,
29, 40, 42, 44, 48, and 51, di smi ssi ng t hose count s of t he
i ndi ct ment , and r emi t t i ng t o Supr eme Cour t f or r esent enci ng, and,
as so modi f i ed, af f i r med.
- 18-
Peopl e v Raphael Gol b
No. 72
LI PPMAN, Chi ef J udge ( concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) :
I t woul d be di f f i cul t t o f i nd t he conduct by def endant
det ai l ed i n t he maj or i t y opi ni on admi r abl e. But our ver y
di f f er ent t ask i s t o deci de whet her t hat conduct was pr oper l y
t r eat ed as cr i mi nal . Whi l e I see no const i t ut i onal i mpedi ment t o
pr osecut i ng conduct si mi l ar t o def endant ' s t ar get i ng Pr of essor
Schi f f man as second degr ee i dent i t y t hef t - - whi ch r equi r es f or
i t s pr oof evi dence of i nt ent t o cause hi ghl y speci f i c i nj ur y of a
non- r eput at i onal sor t - - t he par t i cul ar count s of i dent i t y t hef t
wi t h whi ch def endant was char ged i n t he i ndi ct ment ' s t op t wo
count s wer e not suf f i ci ent l y pr oved.
Tur ni ng t o t he r emai ni ng wel t er of convi ct i ons - - al l
f or mi sdemeanor s, I agr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat def endant ' s
convi ct i ons f or aggr avat ed har assment must be vacat ed and t he
cor r espondi ng count s of t he i ndi ct ment di smi ssed, si nce t he
st at ut e under whi ch t hose convi ct i ons wer e obt ai ned, Penal Law
240. 30 ( 1) ( a) , i s unconst i t ut i onal l y over br oad. I al so agr ee
t hat t her e was a f ai l ur e of pr oof as t o whet her def endant ' s use of
NYU comput er s was unaut hor i zed wi t hi n t he meani ng of Penal Law
156. 05. I , however , par t company wi t h t he maj or i t y as t o i t s
- 1 -
- 2 - No. 72
di smi ssal of onl y some of t he i ndi ct ment ' s cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on
count s and i t s det er mi nat i on t o l eave def endant ' s t hi r d- degr ee
f or ger y convi ct i ons undi st ur bed.
I n di smi ssi ng some, but not al l , of t he second degr ee
cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on ( Penal Law 190. 25) count s, t he maj or i t y
expr esses t he vi ew t hat , i n addi t i on t o addr essi ng i mper sonat i on
i nt ended t o cause economi c i nj ur y or t o i nt er f er e wi t h gover nment
oper at i ons - - t he obj ect i ves t r adi t i onal l y under st ood t o i nf or m
t he mi sdemeanor - - t he cr i me may al so be pr emi sed on an i nt ent t o
cause r eput at i onal i nj ur y. The st at ut e, t he maj or i t y hol ds,
shoul d be r ead t o pr ot ect r eput at i on when mor e t han a pr ank i s
i nvol ved, si nce many peopl e val ue r eput at i on mor e t han money, and
si nce, as I ago i n a moment of f amous i r ony r emar ks t o Ot hel l o, " he
t hat f i l ches f r omme my good name Robs me of t hat whi ch not
enr i ches hi mAnd makes me poor i ndeed. " Ther e i s, of cour se,
not hi ng i n t he l anguage of t he st at ut e t o pr event i t s use i n t he
manner pr oposed by t he maj or i t y - - but t hat i s t he pr obl em. The
st at ut e, as wr i t t en, al l ows a cr i mi nal convi ct i on f or
i mper sonat i on pr ovi ded onl y t hat i t i s meant t o be har mf ul or
benef i ci al i n any way. I t i s har d t o i magi ne any pseudonymous
communi cat i on t hat coul d not be pr osecut ed under t hi s st at ut e.
And, i n an age i n whi ch pseudonymous communi cat i on has become
ubi qui t ous, par t i cul ar l y on t he i nt er net , t hi s st at ut e, l i t er al l y
under st ood, cr i mi nal i zes a vast amount of speech t hat t he Fi r st
Amendment pr ot ect s.
- 2 -
- 3 - No. 72
The pr obl emof t he st at ut e' s subst ant i al over br eadt h i s
not obvi at ed by t he cour t ' s pr onouncement t hat t he enact ment
shoul d not be under st ood t o cr i mi nal i ze conduct not i nt ended t o
cause " r eal har m. " Apar t f r omt he f act t hat t he di st i nct i on t he
maj or i t y has dr awn does not r ender t he st at ut e beni gn, si nce many
t hi ngs sai d usi ng an assumed i dent i t y ar e const i t ut i onal l y
pr ot ect ed f r omci vi l or cr i mi nal sanct i on, even t hough t hey ar e
mor e t han pr anks and ar e i nt ended t o cause r eal har mor t o obt ai n
r eal benef i t ,
*
t hi s pr osecut i on' s use of t he st at ut e was not
l i mi t ed i n t he way t he Cour t now says i t shoul d have been.
Al t hough def endant , af t er t he deni al of hi s mot i on t o
di smi ss on t he gr ound, among ot her s, of st at ut or y over br eadt h,
sought t o have t he j ur y char ged so as t o l i mi t t he st at ut e' s
r each, t he t r i al cour t ' s char ge di d not do t hat and t her e i s no
basi s now t o suppose t hat t he convi ct i ons at i ssue wer e r ender ed
i n obser vance of t he di st i nct i on t hi s Cour t has r et r ospect i vel y
dr awn; f i ve of t he cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on convi ct i ons concededl y
wer e not , and i t i s ent i r el y specul at i ve t hat t he r emai ni ng ni ne
wer e.
The pr obl emwi t h t he cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on convi ct i ons
i s not t hat t hey wer e i nsuf f i ci ent l y suppor t ed. The evi dence as
t o each of t he count s was mor e t han adequat e t o pr ove t he of f ense
as def i ned i n t he st at ut e and as char ged. The r eason t hat t he
*
I t i s di f f i cul t t o i magi ne, f or exampl e, t hat an i l l -
i nt ended, pseudonymousl y ut t er ed comment about I ago or hi s moder n
equi val ent woul d be act i onabl e ci vi l l y, much l ess cr i mi nal l y.
- 3 -
- 4 - No. 72
convi ct i ons must be vacat ed and t he cor r espondi ng count s
di smi ssed, i s r at her t hat t he st at ut e under whi ch t hey wer e
obt ai ned i s unconst i t ut i onal l y br oad, and subst ant i al l y so.
The use of t he t hi r d degr ee f or ger y st at ut e ( Penal
Law 170. 05) t o t he same end as t he cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on
st at ut e i s, I bel i eve, si mi l ar l y obj ect i onabl e. Tr eat i ng
pseudonymous emai l s as f or ger i es when t hey ar e made wi t h some
i nt ent t o " i nj ur e" i n some undef i ned way i s no di f f er ent t han
penal i zi ng i mper sonat i on i n i nt er net communi cat i on f or t he same
amor phous pur pose. Bot h t r eat ment s gi ve pr osecut or s power t hey
shoul d not have t o det er mi ne what speech shoul d and shoul d not be
penal i zed.
I f def endant has caused r eput at i onal i nj ur y, t hat
i s r edr essabl e, i f at al l , as a ci vi l t or t , not as a cr i me.
Cr i mi nal l i bel has l ong si nce been abandoned ( see Gar r i son v
Loui si ana, 379 US 64, 69 [ 1964] ) , not l east of al l because of i t s
t endency i n pr act i ce t o penal i ze and chi l l speech t hat t he
const i t ut i on pr ot ect s ( see Asht on v Kent ucky, 384 US 195, 200- 201
[ 1966] ) , and i t has been decades si nce New Yor k' s cr i mi nal l i bel
st at ut e was r epeal ed. The use of t he cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on and
f or ger y st at ut es now appr oved amount s t o an at avi smat odds wi t h
t he Fi r st Amendment and t he f r ee and uni nhi bi t ed exchange of i deas
i t i s meant t o f ost er .
I woul d di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment i n i t s ent i r et y.
- 4 -
- 5 - No. 72
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Or der modi f i ed by vacat i ng t he convi ct i on on count s 2, 3, 5, 23,
29, 40, 42, 44, 48 and 51 of t he i ndi ct ment , di smi ssi ng t hose
count s of t he i ndi ct ment , and r emi t t i ng t he case t o Supr eme Cour t ,
New Yor k Count y, f or r esent enci ng and, as so modi f i ed, af f i r med.
Opi ni on by J udge Abdus- Sal aam. J udges Gr af f eo, Read, Smi t h,
Pi got t and Ri ver a concur . Chi ef J udge Li ppman di ssent s i n par t i n
an opi ni on.
Deci ded May 13, 2014
- 5 -