People v. Winter

• Decision Date: 29 July 1942
• Citation: 288 N.Y. 418,43 N.E.2d 470
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WINTER et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

288 N.Y. 418

43 N.E.2d 470

PEOPLE

v.WINTER et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 29, 1942.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Isidore J. Winter and Irving Pepperbloom under an information charging defendants with crime of conspiracy to solicit and procure, through solicitation, legal business in violation of section 270-a of the Penal Law. From a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, 262 App.Div. 733, 27 N.Y.S.2d 808, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York (Bayes, J.) convicting the defendants, the defendants appeal by permission.

Reversed and new trial ordered.

LEWIS, J., dissenting. William B. Moore and Edward G. Tarangioli, both of New York City, for Isidore J. Winter, appellant.

Abraham S. Robinson, of New York City, for Irving Pepperbloom, appellant.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Eugene A. Leiman and Stanley H. Fuld, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

DESMOND, Judge.

These two appellants, who are attorneys, have been convicted of conspiracy to violate section 270-a of the Penal Law, consol.Laws, c. 40, which section makes it unlawful to solicit or procure through solicitation ‘legal business.’

The information accused twenty-four defendants of having been members of a general conspiracy, the scheme of which was to obtain information regarding accidents occurring in New York City, to approach the parties injured in these accidents and to attempt to secure the signatures of the injured parties to retainer blanks, which retainers subsequently would be sold to attorneys or, which, by pre-arrangement had already been so sold to attorneys. The alleged conspriators were divided into three groups: two newspapermen, who secured the information in the first instance at police precincts; a number of ‘runners,’ who did the actual soliciting, and several attorneys, who, it is charged, handled and disposed of the claims by settlement or litigation.

The action was severed as to three of the ‘runners'; four other ‘runners,’ four attorneys and one of the two newspapermen pleaded guilty; the case against the other newspaperman was dismissed; one lawyer was acquitted. The remaining defendants were convicted. Four lawyers and two ‘runners' appealed to the Appellate Division. The judgment against one of the lawyers was reversed and the information dismissed. As to the rest of the defendants, the judgments of conviction were affirmed. 262 App.Div. 733, 27 N.Y.S.2d 808. Only these two appellants attorneys, have appealed to this court.

As against these two appellants, the information levels the accusation that it was a part of the conspiracy that these two should ‘regularly and systematically use certain other of the defendants to solicit and should regularly and systematically pay to other of the defendants certain sums of money * * *.’ The only evidence we need consider is that which purports to prove the existence of the general conspiracy and the participation of these two appellants in that conspiracy. The proofs clearly show that the conspiracy itself was formed and that it functioned as alleged. Whether or not there was evidence to establish that these appellants were coconspirators, is another question. The Appellate Division dissent was on the ground that such evidence did not appear to be sufficient to convict appellants of the conspiracy, though it would suffice to show them guilty of the substantive acts.

Without setting out the testimony at length, we say that it sufficiently shows that each of these appellants was acquainted with some of the ‘runners' involved in the general conspiracy and that each appellant was in some instances recommended as an attorney by certain of these ‘runners.’ In some of these cases one or the other of these appellants was retained, as a result of such recommendations by the ‘runners.’ The jury could readily have found that these recommendations were made at the request of appellants. But the problem remains whether this kind of proof shows connection of appellants with the conspiracy pleaded in the information. Of course, to...