Skip to main content

JOHN RUNOWICZ, has been indicted on charges of grand larceny and falsifying business records

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau today announced the indictment and arrest of a college administrator for stealing over $400,000 from New York University.

The defendant, JOHN RUNOWICZ, 47, has been indicted on charges of grand larceny and falsifying business records. The crimes charged in the indictment occurred between September 11, 2003 and January 27, 2009.

New York University reported the matter to the District Attorney’s Office this summer after the theft was uncovered by an internal audit.

The investigation leading to today’s indictment and arrest revealed that RUNOWICZ was the administrator of New York University’s chemistry department, where he was responsible for overseeing budgetary matters, handling expense reimbursement and supply requests from department members, and managing lab resources. Between 2003 and 2009, RUNOWICZ caused thousands of fraudulent requests for petty cash reimbursement to be submitted to the university Bursar’s Office. RUNOWICZ scavenged discarded cash register receipts from a local liquor store, attached them to reimbursement request forms, and falsely claimed that the expenses were for chemistry department supply purchases and other functions. None of those receipts reflected legitimate business expenses. Carrying on his scheme for over five years, RUNOWICZ fraudulently submitted over 13,000 receipts from the liquor store and stole $409,000.

RUNOWICZ has been indicted on one count of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony, and six counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a class E felony. A class C felony is punishable by up to 5 to 15 years and a class E felony is punishable by up to 1⅓ to 4 years, both in prison.

The defendant is scheduled to be arraigned today in State Supreme Court, Part 1.

Assistant District Attorney Sally Pritchard, of the Special Prosecutions Bureau, is in charge of the prosecution under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Thomas Wornom, Chief of the Special Prosecutions Bureau.

Defendant Information:

JOHN RUNOWICZ, 5/7/1962
651 East 14th Street
New York, New York

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...