4 Misc.2d 449, People v. Knapp
| Citation | 4 Misc.2d 449, 157 N.Y.S.2d 820 |
| Party Name | People v. Knapp |
| Case Date | May 31, 1956 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Page 449
Page 450
[157 N.Y.S.2d 822] Bernard H. Fitzpatrick, New York City, and William J. Keating, New York City, of counsel, in opposition thereto.
Frank S. Hogan by Harold Birns, New York City, and Albert P. Loening, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., New York City, of counsel, in support of said motion.
SCHWEITZER, Judge.
In the matter of the application of the District Attorney of New York County to adjudge Milton Knapp, a witness appearing before the third grand jury for the April, 1956, term of court, in contempt of court--This is an application by the district attorney pursuant to the Judiciary Law, §§ 750, 751, to have the respondent, Milton Knapp, adjudged in contempt of court for refusing to answer certain questions asked of him upon his appearance as a witness before the third April, 1956, grand jury of this court.
Among the proceedings pending before that grand jury was one entitled 'People against John Doe, et al.,' an inquiry designed to determine whether the crimes of conspiracy, Penal Law, § 580, bribery of labor representatives, Penal Law, § 380, and extortion, Penal Law, § 850, were being committed or had been committed in this county. In the course of that inquiry, Milton Knapp, one of two partners conducting business as Eagle Reel & Manufacturer Co., was subpoenaed to appear
Page 451
before the grand jury and to produce certain books and records. He appeared before the grand jury on April 23, 1956, was duly sworn and was asked the following question: 'Q. Now, who represented the union in these negotiations leading to a salary increase?' The witness refused to answer that question, stating that he did so on the advice of his lawyer and on the ground that it might tend to incriminate him.
The grand jury thereupon voted to grant the witness immunity, in accordance with the provisions of section 2447 of the Penal Law, and at the express request of the district attorney, the foreman of the grand jury directed the witness to answer the question. The witness, however, again refused to answer on the same ground of possible self-incrimination. Two days later, on April 25, 1956, the witness reappeared before the grand jury and while under oath, was asked a series of questions, each of which the refused to answer on the ground of possible self-incrimination, [157 N.Y.S.2d 823] motwithstanding that the foreman of the grand jury, at the district attorney's request, directed the witness to answer each question, thereby assuring him of the immunity provided for by section 2447 of the Penal Law.
The questions thus put to the witness, which he refused to answer, were as follows: 'Q. Mr. Knapp, do you know a man named Philip Goldberg? Q. Mr. Knapp, do you know whether Philip Goldberg is an offical of Local No. 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters? Q. Mr. Knapp, on or about October 28, 1955, did you give Philip Goldberg, a representative of Local No. 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the sum of $500.00? Q. Mr. Knapp, I show you this check marked Grand Jury Exhibit No. 1 of todays date in the sum of $500.00 and ask whether you recognize it? Q. Mr. Knapp, on or about October 28, 1955, did you go to the Public National Bank & Trust Company at 149th Street and Prospect Avenue and cash this check, Grand Jury Exhibit No. 1, and receive from the bank the sum og $500.00? Q. Mr. Knapp, on October 28, 1955, were you accompanied by Philip Goldberg, an official of Local No. 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, when you went to the Public National Bank & Trust Company located at 149th Street and Prospect Avenue? Q. Mr. Knapp, I again show you Grand Jury Exhibit No. 1 of todays date and ask whether your handwriting appears on the face of that check? Q. Mr. Knapp, I show you a stud book that appears to be a check stub book, and I ask you to examine this check stub book and tell me whether your handwriting appears on the space of No. 2908, that is, the box? Q. Mr. Knapp, I direct your
Page 452
attention to the box No. 2908, and I ask you to tell the Grand Jury what initial appears before the name, Goldberg? Q. Mr. Knapp, I ask whether Grand Jury Exhibit No. 2 of todays date is in fact a stub book used by the Eagle Reel and Manufacturer Co.? Q. Mr. Knapp, when was the last time you spoke to Philip Goldberg? Q. Do you know a man named Sam Goldstein? Q. Isn't it a fact that Sam Goldstein is an official of Local No. 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters? Q. Did you ever pay or give any sum of money to Sam Goldstein?'
The district attorney and the foreman thereupon applied to this court to direct the witness to answer the foregoing questions. Following a hearing at which the witness was represented by counsel, this court ruled that the questions were proper in every respect and directed the witness to return to the grand jury room and to answer each of the questions.
On April 27, 1956, the witness reappeared before the grand jury, each of the questions was again read to him, and he persisted in his refusal to answer each of those questions on the same stated ground of possible self-incrimination.
Thereupon, on April 30, 1956, the present application was made to this court for an order adjudging the witness, Milton Knapp, in contempt of court. A further hearing was held at which the witness was again [157 N.Y.S.2d 824] represented by counsel. At this hearing, the witness raised the objection that the entire investigation by the grand jury was beyond its jurisdiction, the claim advanced being that the business in which the witness was engaged was an industry affecting interstate commerce, and that section 302 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, the socalled Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186, 29 U.S.C.A. § 186, had completely pre-empted the subject matter of payments made by an employer to a representative of employees in any industry affecting interstate commerce, and thereby rendered inoperative any state legislation on the same subject matter. Section 380 of the Penal Law is entitled 'Bribery of labor representatives,' and makes it a misdemeanor for any duly appointed representative of a labor organization to solicit, accept or agree to accept a bribe from any person for the purpose of influencing his 'acts, decisions, or other duties as such representative' or for the purpose of inducing him to refrain from causing or preventing 'a strike or work stoppage or any form of injury to any business'; and it also makes guilty of a misdemeanor any person who gives or offers a bribe to such a representative for any such purpose, see People v. Cilento, 1 A.D.2d 206, 207, 208, 149 N.Y.S.2d 14, 15.
Page 453
Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186, 29 U.S.C.A. § 186, on which respondent witness here relies, makes it a misdemeanor, subject to certain stated exceptions, for an employer 'to pay or deliver, or to agree to pay or deliver, any money or other thing of value to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce,' and likewise makes it a misdemeanor for any such representative 'to receive or accept, or to agree to receive or accept, from the employer of such employees any money or other thing of value.' The section has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as creating a criminal offense of the nature of malum prohibitum, and as outlawing 'all payments, with stated exceptions, between employer and representative'. United States v. Ryan, 350 U.S. 299, 76 S.Ct. 400, 401.
It has long been settled that 'the same act might, as to its character and tendencies, and the consequences it involved, constitute an offense against both the State and Federal governments, and might draw to its commission the penalties denounced by either, as appropriate to its character in reference to each". People of State of California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725, 731, 69 S.Ct. 841, 844, 93 L.Ed. 1005, quoting from United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 560, 569, 13 L.Ed. 257, and other case there cited.
The question, in essence, where the Federal Government has legislated on a subject within its jurisdiction and there is also state...
To continue reading
Request your trial