N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART Specific Offenses / TITLE Offenses Involving Fraud / ARTICLE Offenses Involving False Written Statements
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 175.10 (2026)

Falsifying business records in the first degree

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
  A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
  Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 150 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: People v. Taveras, 906 N.E.2d 370 (NY 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Taveras, 906 N.E.2d 370 (NY 2009). · cites it 3× “40 [2]), four counts of falsifying business records in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.10) and the bail jumping charge (Penal Law § 215.”
People v. Golb, 15 N.E.3d 805 (NY 2014). “That crime is committed when a person “commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof’ (Penal Law § 175.10). According to the People,…”
People v. Bloomfield, 844 N.E.2d 296 (NY 2006). · cites it 3× “05 (1); 17 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 175.10; two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 170.”
People v. Kisina, 924 N.E.2d 792 (NY 2010). · cites it 2× “The principal question presented in this appeal is whether a physician can be found guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.10) for submitting fraudulent medical documentation to a no-fault insurance carrier for the purpose of receiving…”
People v. Kozlowski, 898 N.E.2d 891 (NY 2008). “42), eight counts of first degree falsifying business records (Penal Law § 175.10), one count of fourth degree conspiracy (Penal Law § 105.”
Allstate Ins. v. Elzanaty, 916 F. Supp. 2d 273 (E.D.N.Y 2013). “if the corporation “procured its formation through fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.”
Domingo Antonio Hernandez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 437 F.3d 341 (3rd Cir. 2006). “42 , and falsifying business records in the first degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 175.10 . 373 F.3d at 483 .”
People v. Mackey, 79 A.D.3d 1680 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.10). Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our…”
Bertuglia v. City of New York, 133 F. Supp. 3d 608 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “The remaining six counts for falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 175.10 , and offering a false instrument for filing in first degree, in violation of N.”
Morgenthau v. Khalil, 73 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · cites it 3× “A documented, comprehensive, and detailed case against defendant is presented by the underlying 185-count indictment charging defendant with falsifying business records in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.10), a class E felony, and failure to properly file currency transaction…”
Martin v. Gantner, 443 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D.N.Y 2006). · cites it 5× “Defendant moves to dismiss, contending that a prior conviction under N.Y. Penal Law § 175.10 "for “falsifying business records in the first degree” makes Plaintiff ineligible for naturalization.”
People v. Saxton, 75 A.D.3d 755 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “Defendant’s challenge to the specificity of the jury *760 charge relating to count three is without merit (see Penal Law § 175.10). Likewise, we decline to disturb as harsh and excessive the six-month jail term, the five-year term of probation and the $5,000 fine imposed for…”
Show all 150 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.