possession of the Commission. Officer Estrill also testified that on June 5, 2009, he went to Mendoza’s residence and observed that Mendoza’s safari was covered in soot, had flat tires, and appeared to be inoperable. Finally, George testified that DeSilvia admitted that he had never seen or inspected Mendoza’s safari taxi prior to completing the vehicle registration and inspection lane checklist. This is sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find Mendoza guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of knowingly procuring false instruments under section 795. George’s testimony that DeSilvia had admitted that he had never seen or inspected Mendoza’s safari taxi prior to completing the vehicle registration and inspection lane checklist was sufficient to allow a reason d 42, 45 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Finally, George’s testimony that registering
holding that actual intent to defraud is not necessary to finding of constructive fraud holding defendants possession of fake ids was sufficient to infer his intent to defraud or deceive recognizing that a jury is permitted to infer an intent to deceive from circumstantial evidence holding that the statute requires actual intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors or the trustee constructive intent to defraud does not suffice holding that  2314 does not require specific intent to defraud a certain person a general intent to defraud any person who might fall victim to the schemers plan is sufficient