N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART Specific Offenses / TITLE Offenses Involving Fraud / ARTICLE Forgery and Related Offenses
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 170.25 (2026)

Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 170.25 Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second
           degree.
  A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in
the second degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent
to defraud, deceive or injure another, he utters or possesses any forged
instrument of a kind specified in section 170.10.
  Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree is a
class D felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 281 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: People v. Roberts, 31 N.Y.3d 406 (N.Y. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Roberts, 31 N.Y.3d 406 (N.Y. 2018). · cites it 4× “Jonathan" and there was no one with that name in the state's records. At Roberts' trial on one count of identity theft in the second degree (Penal Law § 190.”
People v. Rodriguez, 957 N.E.2d 1133 (N.Y. 2011). · cites it 3× “Appellate Division affirmed defendant’s conviction ( 71 AD3d 450 [1st Dept 2010]), holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could rationally have inferred that defendant possessed the forged documents with intent to defraud, deceive, or…”
People v. Green, 141 A.D.3d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 2× “In doing so, the court determined that the Florida crime was the equivalent of the New York crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, a class D felony (see Penal Law § 170.25). In applying the “strict equivalency” test for determining if a foreign…”
People v. Muhammad, 945 N.E.2d 1010 (N.Y. 2011). · cites it 3× “Defendant was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). At trial, representatives of the credit card companies testified that the bank cards were forgeries.”
People v. Dallas, 46 A.D.3d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 4× “We reject defendant’s argument that there was a lack of proof he shared whatever fraudulent intent his prospective purchasers might have had.”
People v. Mattiace, 568 N.E.2d 1189 (N.Y. 1990). · cites it 2× “ANALYSIS OF SUFFICIENCY ISSUE The Appellate Division correctly determined that the jury could properly infer defendant’s guilty knowledge and possession of the forged Ace manifest from the circumstantial evidence ( 156 AD2d 390 , 392; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ; Cohen…”
Mahoney v. State of New York, 147 A.D.3d 1289 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 2× “‘with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another’ ” (People v Briggins, 50 NY2d 302, 305 [1980], quoting Penal Law § 170.25; see Penal Law § 170.10 [2], [3]).”
People v. Ippolito, 987 N.E.2d 276 (N.Y. 2013). · cites it 2× “40 [1] [the value of the property alleged to have been stolen exceeds $50,000]), and 45 counts of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument (CPFI), a class D felony (Penal Law § 170.25), 42 of which related to the checks that he endorsed in Katherine M.”
People v. Silberzweig, 58 A.D.3d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 3× “Moreover, while “[t]he mere negotiation or utterance of a forged instrument cannot, of itself, establish a presumption that [the] defendant had knowledge of the forged nature of the instrument” (People v Johnson, 65 NY2d at 561), the fact remains that “[g]uilty knowledge of…”
Crispino v. Allard, 378 F. Supp. 2d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). · cites it 2× “35 ); and two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree ( N.Y. Penal Law § 170.25 ). Crispino was sentenced under the first judgment to an indeterminate prison term of five to fifteen years on the second-degree grand larceny charge, and he was…”
People v. Day, 535 N.E.2d 1325 (N.Y. 1989). “50; Penal Law § 170.25). Comparatively, for sentencing purposes in this case, a person is guilty of attempted grand larceny when he attempts to steal property over a specified amount (Penal Law § 110.”
People v. Kocsis, 137 A.D.3d 1476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “10]” (Penal Law § 170.25), including a “commercial instrument” (Penal Law § 170.”
Show all 281 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.