309 N.Y. 420, People v. Le Grande

Citation309 N.Y. 420
Party NamePeople v. Le Grande
Case DateJanuary 12, 1956
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (New York)

Page 420

309 N.Y. 420

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,

v.

HELEN LE GRANDE, Respondent. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,

v.

SARAH MALONEY, Respondent. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,

v.

ANNE SORISE, Respondent. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,

v.

VASTINER KING, Respondent. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,

v.

DOLORES BENDER, True Name DOLORES BROWN, Respondent. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,

v.

LOIS BROWN, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeal

January 12, 1956

Argued October 19, 1955.

Page 421

COUNSEL

Edward S. Silver, District Attorney (Aaron Nussbaum of counsel), for appellant. I. The Appellate Division erred in reversing the judgment and dismissing the indictment. (People v. Bellows, 281 N.Y. 67; People v. Scheinman, 295 N.Y. 142; People v. Potskowski, 298 N.Y. 299; People v. Rudolph, 303 N.Y. 73; People v. Lee, 308 N.Y. 302.) II. Guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. III. A fraudulent representation may be effected in myriad ways: by acts as well as by words, by half truths calculated to mislead, by reckless statements made without knowledge, by silence when there is a duty to speak, by false impressions as to charitable or benevolent purpose. (People v. Gellard, 296 N.Y. 516; People v. Yarmish, 189 Misc. 1041; People v. Suffern, 242 A.D. 353;

Page 422

People v. Avery, 254 A.D. 780, 279 N.Y. 601.)IV. Respondents were properly convicted of the crime of fraudulently obtaining property for charitable or benevolent purposes. (People v. Powers, 147 N.Y. 104; Butterworth v. Keeler, 219 N.Y. 446; Matter of Roland, 225 A.D. 118; Matter of Frasch, 245 N.Y. 174.) V. The conviction of respondents does not in any way offend against constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion. (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145; Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94.) VI. Respondents were properly convicted of the crime of conspiracy. (People v. Winter, 288 N.Y. 418; People v. Van Tassel, 156 N.Y. 561; People v. Friedlander, 280 N.Y. 437; People v. Miles, 192 N.Y. 541.) VII. The acquittal of defendant Davis did not bar a conviction of the other defendants. (People v. Kuland, 266 N.Y. 1; People v. Scheppa, 295 N.Y. 359.) VIII. The jurisdiction was properly laid in Kings County as to each of the respondents. (People v. Charleton, 157 Misc. 570.) IX. The trial court properly admitted the statement of defendant Davis into evidence under proper instructions.

Arnold W. Wallach, Harry Chiert and Bernard Chiert for respondents. I. The alleged acts on the part of respondents were not encompassed within the intendment of section 934 of the Penal Law and said section 934 of the Penal Law should not be construed to cover the alleged acts on the part of respondents. (People v. Adamkiewicz, 298 N.Y. 176; Hornstein v. Paramount Pictures, 292 N.Y. 468...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • 702 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1983), 81-5387, Scott v. Rosenberg
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 21, 1983
    ...writ dismissed, 413 Ill. 437, 109 N.E.2d 762 (1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 970, 73 S.Ct. 1112, 97 L.Ed. 1387 (1953); People v. Le Grande, 309 N.Y. 420, 131 N.E.2d 712 (1956), and have concluded that the protections of the first amendment were not Here, however, we face the question whether......
1 cases
  • 702 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1983), 81-5387, Scott v. Rosenberg
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 21, 1983
    ...writ dismissed, 413 Ill. 437, 109 N.E.2d 762 (1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 970, 73 S.Ct. 1112, 97 L.Ed. 1387 (1953); People v. Le Grande, 309 N.Y. 420, 131 N.E.2d 712 (1956), and have concluded that the protections of the first amendment were not Here, however, we face the question whether......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT