Benjamin S. v. Kuriansky
| Decision Date | 18 February 1982 |
| Citation | 432 N.E.2d 777,55 N.Y.2d 116,447 N.Y.S.2d 905 |
| Parties | , 432 N.E.2d 777 In the Matter of BENJAMIN S., Respondent. v. Edward J. KURIANSKY, as Deputy Attorney-General, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Edward J. Kuriansky, Deputy Atty. Gen. , for appellant.
David G. Richenthal and George P. Birnbaum, New York City, for respondent.
Petitioner moved to quash or modify a Grand Jury subpoena issued by a Queens County Grand Jury, on the basis of a promise allegedly made to him by a Special Assistant Attorney-General as part of a plea bargaining agreement. Supreme Court and the Appellate Division both held that the plea bargaining promise should be enforced, each basing the result on differing reasoning. Because the alleged promise was not made a part of the record in the prior criminal proceeding, we reverse.
In March of 1979, petitioner was subpoenaed to appear before a New York County Grand Jury and was questioned about the existence of kickbacks and other illegal rebates in the health-care industry. Petitioner's responses to this questioning led to his indictment for three counts of perjury in the first degree. During plea negotiations, petitioner's desire to avoid being required to give further information regarding the events covered by his Grand Jury testimony was expressed several times by his two attorneys. Whatever understanding may have been reached between petitioner's attorneys and the prosecutor in this regard, however, it clearly was not made a part of the record. Neither is the existence of such an agreement flatly contradicted on the record, either by virtue of an inconsistent agreement or by a statement elicited from petitioner that no other promises had been made to induce his plea.
Approximately six months after his guilty plea, petitioner was served with a grand jury subpoena commanding his appearance before a Queens County Grand Jury, which was investigating corruption in the hospital industry. This subpoena, the subject of the present appeal, was issued in connection with an investigation being prosecuted by another bureau of the special prosecutor's office which had previously subpoenaed petitioner in March of 1979. After unsuccessful attempts to have the claimed plea bargaining agreement honored, petitioner made a motion to quash or modify the subpoena. Supreme Court, Criminal Term, found that the prosecutor, by his equivocal responses whenever the subject was brought up, had led petitioner to believe that he had no reason to worry about future Grand Jury appearances. Notwithstanding the court's belief that no definite promise had been made regarding future Grand Jury testimony, it enforced petitioner's expectation by modifying the subpoena to the extent of precluding questioning of petitioner about matters which had been discussed during his prior appearance before the New York County Grand Jury.
The Appellate Division affirmed, but on a different analysis. That court noted that a prosecutor may not be held to an aspect of a plea bargain to which he did not consent simply because he made imprecise or equivocal statements during plea negotiations. The Appellate Division found, however, that by indicating his assent that petitioner would not be required to give further information about matters covered in his Grand Jury testimony, the prosecutor knowingly consented to an agreement that petitioner would not be called before a Grand Jury by his office to discuss those matters.
We find it unnecessary to attempt to discern the scope and meaning of the statements made during the plea negotiations relative to petitioner's desire to avoid further involvement with the Grand Jury. Inasmuch as a record had been made of the terms of the plea agreement in the prior criminal proceeding, and the promise petitioner now claims was made is nowhere mentioned in that record, the claimed off-the-record promise is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Spitzer, 02 CIV.0025 (SCH).
...valueless to the prosecution. Id. at 864, 611 N.Y.S.2d 827, 634 N.E.2d 199 (emphasis added). In Benjamin S. v. Kuriansky, 55 N.Y.2d 116, 447 N.Y.S.2d 905, 432 N.E.2d 777 (Ct.App.1982), which also held that a claimed off-the-record promise was unenforceable, the Court of Appeals expressed it......
-
People v. Decker
...to further inquire into the existence of any purported off-the-record promise with respect to defendant's son (see Matter of Benjamin S., 55 N.Y.2d 116, 120–121, 447 N.Y.S.2d 905, 432 N.E.2d 777 [1982] ; 30 N.Y.S.3d 756 People v. Walker, 26 A.D.3d 797, 798, 810 N.Y.S.2d 270 [2006], lv. deni......
-
Whaley v. Rodriguez
...excluded...." People v. Berkowitz, 50 N.Y.2d 333, 349, 428 N.Y.S.2d 927, 936, 406 N.E.2d 783, 792 (1980). In re Benjamin S., 55 N.Y.2d 116, 447 N.Y.S.2d 905, 432 N.E.2d 777 (1982), stands only for the proposition that "off-the-record promises made in the plea bargaining process will not be ......
-
People v. Crowell
...inasmuch as it would be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the plea agreement placed on the record (see Matter of Benjamin S., 55 N.Y.2d 116, 120–121, 447 N.Y.S.2d 905, 432 N.E.2d 777 [1982] ; 130 A.D.3d 1364People v. Walker, 26 A.D.3d 797, 798, 810 N.Y.S.2d 270 [2006], lv. denie......