163 F.Supp.2d 140
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Carmine AGNELLO, et. al., Defendant.
No. 00 CR 205(NG) (RML).
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
August 13, 2001.
 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW KLAPPER, Defendant.
2009NY032282.
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County.
Decided April 28, 2010.
 

        In this day of wide dissemination of thoughts and messages through transmissions which are vulnerable to interception and readable by unintended parties, armed with software, spyware, viruses and cookies spreading capacity; the concept of internet privacy is a fallacy upon which no one should rely.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
John V. ESPOSITO, Defendant.
Supreme Court, New York County,
Extraordinary Special and Trial Term.
July 26, 1989.

Page 469

United States of America,
v.
Jeremy Hammond, Defendant.
12 Crim. 185 (LAP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dated: February 21, 2013

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Oleksandr DOROZHKO, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 08-0201-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued: April 3, 2009.
Decided: July 22, 2009.
 

JONATHAN DAVIDOFF, Plaintiff,
v.
STANLEY ROBERT DAVIDOFF and ILA DAVIDOFF-FELD, Defendants.
101728/06.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.
Decided May 10, 2006.
  

Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan

MOTOROLA CREDIT CORPORATION and Nokia Corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
Kemal UZAN, et al., Defendants.
No. 02 CIV.666 JSR.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
July 31, 2003.
As Corrected August 8, 2003.

OPINION and ORDER

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Gladys LETT, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
Nov. 2, 1992.

        MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

        Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered August 22, 1989, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree, computer trespass, and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

        ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Robert VERSAGGI, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York.
Feb. 15, 1994.
 

OPINION OF THE COURT

        Rochester City Court has found defendant guilty of two counts of computer tampering in the second degree (Penal Law § 156.20), determining that he intentionally altered two computer programs designed to provide uninterrupted telephone[83 N.Y.2d 125] service to the offices of the Eastman Kodak Corporation (see, 136 Misc.2d 361, 518 N.Y.S.2d 553). 1 County Court affirmed, without opinion.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Andre L. McDOUGAL, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
Nov. 6, 1995.

        MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

       Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered August 23, 1994, convicting him of bribe receiving by a public servant in the third degree, receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree, official misconduct, and computer trespass, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.