NY.MBA / Source-linked research

Alan Hevesi’s Manhattan pension-misconduct plea and later prison sentence

On October 7, 2010, Alan Hevesi pleaded guilty in Manhattan Supreme Court to the felony of receiving reward for official misconduct in the state…

PlaceNew York County Supreme Court, Manhattan, New York City
Claim period2010-10-07 – 2011-04-15
Source record6 inspected references

Research context, not a current advisory. Claim assessments refer to their documented place and time. The source archive has partial coverage and has not undergone full independent semantic recertification. A located origin is not necessarily the first source anywhere. Read the original records.

What the evidence establishes

CLAIM 01

On October 7, 2010, Alan Hevesi pleaded guilty in Manhattan Supreme Court to the felony of receiving reward for official misconduct in the state pension-investment case.

Scope: New York County Supreme Court, Manhattan, New York City · 2010-10-07 – 2010-10-07

Assessment: SUPPORTED

The Attorney General’s original related filing gives the exact plea date and charge; contemporary court reporting locates the completed plea in Manhattan.

Review status: SOURCE_CHECKED_AI_REVIEW. This is not an independently certified universal verdict.

What is not established: The original charging allegations are distinguished from this completed plea. The prior separate 2006 case and other defendants’ liability are outside this assessment.

CLAIM 02

On April 15, 2011, Alan Hevesi received a prison sentence of one to four years in the Manhattan pension-misconduct case.

Scope: New York County Supreme Court, Manhattan, New York City · 2011-04-15 – 2011-04-15

Assessment: SUPPORTED

The contemporary April 15 report describes a completed sentence and attributes the one-to-four-year range to the Attorney General. The official retrospective independently preserves that range, while earlier dates in the news chain were prospective.

Review status: SOURCE_CHECKED_AI_REVIEW. This is not an independently certified universal verdict.

What is not established: This is the imposed indeterminate range, not a fixed four-year term or a claim about actual time served. Exact judgment text and custody calculations remain uninspected.

Limits and open questions

The original charging allegations are distinguished from this completed plea. The prior separate 2006 case and other defendants’ liability are outside this assessment.

This is the imposed indeterminate range, not a fixed four-year term or a claim about actual time served. Exact judgment text and custody calculations remain uninspected.

Observed circulation comprises linked reports within one DNAinfo editorial source plus official records. Broader earliest publication and native social circulation were not established.

Contemporary articles gave December 16 and later April 4 as prospective sentencing dates. The inspected completed-sentence report is dated April 15; proposed dates do not establish earlier completed sentences.

Context matters. Follow the records.Explore research →