Knapp v. Schweitzer

• Decision Date: 04 April 1957
• Citation: 2 N.Y.2d 975,162 N.Y.S.2d 613
• Parties: , 142 N.E.2d 649 Milton KNAPP, Appellant, v. Mitchell D. SCHWEITZER, Judge of the Court of General Sessions et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 613

162 N.Y.S.2d 613

2 N.Y.2d 975, 142 N.E.2d 649

Milton KNAPP, Appellant, v. Mitchell D. SCHWEITZER, Judge of the Court of General Sessions et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 4, 1957.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 2 A.D.2d 579, 157 N.Y.S.2d 158.

Petitioner brought a proceeding under the Civil Practice Act, § 1283 et seq., against the Judge of the Court of General Sessions and the District Attorney of the County of New York to review a judgment adjudging the petitioner in contempt and sentencing him to jail and payment of fine for failure to answer questions before grand jury on assertion of claim of privilege against self-incrimination.

From an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, Jacob Markowitz, J., entered in the New York County Clerk's office on July 3, 1956, dismissing the petition, the petitioner appealed.

The Appellate Division, Bergan, J., affirmed the order and held that where there was actual cooperative policy between appropriate federal and state authority in prosecuting crimes arising from acts made criminal both by Congress and the State Legislature and concerning which testimony was sought to be compelled, witness at grand jury inquiry, who asserted that answers elicited under compulsion of state authority would incriminate him under federal law, was not entitled to plea of privilege against self-incrimination.

The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, and a motion was made in the Court of Appeals for a stay.

The Court of Appeals, 2 N.Y.2d 832, 159 N.Y.S.2d 967, granted motion for a stay and set case down for argument during the third week of the January, 1957, session of the Court of Appeals.

Motion was made in the Court of Appeals to amend the remittitur.

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon by the Court of Appeals questions under the Constitution of the United States, as follows: '1. In the course of an investigation by the Third April Grand Jury of New York County under Penal Law, [Consol.Laws, c. 40] Sections 380, 580 and 850 dealing with bribery of labor union representatives, conspiracy and extortion, appellant, an employer engaged in interstate commerce, declined to answer questions directed to the ascertainment of whether he had paid money to certain named officials of a labor union, Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, on the ground that the answers would tend to incriminate him, citing particularly his peril under a Federal statute, Taft-Hartley Act, Section 302, 29 U.S.C.A. § 186 regulating under penal sanction, payments to union representatives; and appellant was thereupon convicted of a contempt of the Court of General Sessions of said County against his...