People v. Chester

Decision Date19 December 1956
Citation4 Misc.2d 949,158 N.Y.S.2d 829
PartiesPEOPLE et al. v. Max CHESTER, Samuel Goldstein and John Dioguardi.
CourtNew York Court of General Sessions

Oscar A. Blaustein and Jacob M. Mandelbaum (of Mandelbaum & Chassen), New York City, for defendant.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. of New York County, Harold Birns and Albert P. Loening, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., New York City, for the People.

SCHWEITZER, Justice.

This is a motion by one of the three defendants herein, Samuel Goldstein, to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the facts stated therein do not constitute the crime charged, and on the further ground that the 'Court has no jurisdiction of the state of facts set forth in said indictment.' The second ground, however, appears to be but a restatement of the first ground, and the sole problem presented for decision is whether the facts set forth in the indictment constitute the crime charged. No challenge to the indictment is advanced by either of the other two defendants, Max Chester and John Dioguardi.

Preliminarily it might be observed that defendant Goldstein's challenge to the indictment is in the nature of a demurrer, Code of Criminal Procedure, § 323, subd. 4. The proper procedure for challenging the sufficiency of an indictment is by a demurrer, and a demurrer cannot be interposed while, as here, a plea of not guilty stands. People v. Kahn, 155 App.Div. 821, 140 N.Y.S. 618. This court, however, has decided to overlook any technical defects in the procedure followed by the moving defendant.

The indictment contains four counts. The first count charges the crime of conspiracy to violate section 380 of the Penal Law, dealing with bribery of labor representatives, and the remaining three counts charge substantive violations of the same section. For the purposes of the present motion the facts set forth in the indictment must be deemed to be true. Those facts are as follows:

During the period here involved, October 1, 1955-February 28, 1956, defendant Chester was the secretary-treasurer of Local 405, Retail Clerks International Association, A. F. L.; defendant Goldstein was President of Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, A. F. L.; and defendant Dioguardi was Vice-President of Equitable Research Bureau, Inc. A partnership known as Kings Electro Plating Co., doing business in Brooklyn, New York, had been in contractual relationship with Local 475, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (U. E.) as the recognized representative of its employees, under collective bargaining agreements the latest of which expired on June 30, 1955. Experiencing some difficulty in negotiating a satisfactory new contract with Local 475, the employer met with defendant Chester who proposed a plan to resolve the employer's labor problems. The gist of this plan was that the employer would enter into a collective bargaining agreement with Chester's local, and thereby divest the troublesome Local 475 of jurisdiction. Chester sought a payment of $35,000 from the employer to accomplish this result. Chester and the employer thereafter discussed the proposed plan with the other two defendants, and the three defendants 'agreed, promised, guaranteed and assured [the employer] that as a result of the adoption of Chester's plan there would be no repercussions, violence, strike or work stoppage of any sort which could be caused by said Local 475 or Local 405, or any of their respective representatives.' It was further proposed that the employer's plant be moved from Brooklyn to Yonkers, New York. The defendants subsequently agreed to reduce the price from $35,000 to $30,000, of which sum $10,000 was paid on account.

The indictment alleges that defendant Chester solicited and agreed to accept the said sum of $30,000, and received the partial payment of $10,000, 'upon any agreement and understanding, expressed and implied, that he should be influenced in respect to his acts, decisions and other duties' as representative of his Local 405, and that defendants Goldstein and Dioguardi 'aided and abetted' in the commission of the crime and 'counseled, induced, procured and commanded defendant Max Chester to commit said crime.'

The consummation of these arrangements between the defendants and the employer would presumably enable the employer to dictate his future labor contracts on his own terms, with the assurance that there would be no repercussions, strike or work stoppage of any sort. As consideration for the substantial sums to be paid to the defendants, the employer undoubtedly expected to realize valuable returns in the form of payroll savings and other benefits at the expense of its employees.

The basis for the attack on the sufficiency of the indictment is that since Local 475 was the duly recognized collective bargaining representative of the employees of Kings Electro Plating Company, Chester's union did not and could not represent those employees in collective bargaining, and Chester therefore owed no duties to such employees or to his union in relation to such employees. Although it was contemplated by the defendants that Chester's union would displace Local 475 as the employees' collective bargaining agent, it is contended that that result could not be legally accomplished without the free consent of a majority of the employees themselves. The claim is accordingly asserted that Chester's agreement with the employer was not made in the performance of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Kirk
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • June 12, 1969
    ...admitted. (People v. Wright, 12 Misc.2d 961, 173 N.Y.S.2d 160; People v. Squillante, 12 Misc.2d 514, 173 N.Y.S.2d 749; People v. Chester, 4 Misc.2d 949, 158 N.Y.S.2d 829; People v. Kalbfeld, 124 Misc. 200, 207 N.Y.S. As to the first and sixth grounds of the demurrer, the Court is of the opi......
  • People v. Willmott
    • United States
    • New York Villiage Court
    • September 11, 1971
    ...v. Mackey, 61 Misc.2d 799, 306 N.Y.S.2d 502) in which case the allegations of the Information are deemed to be true. (People v. Chester, 4 Misc.2d 949, 158 N.Y.S.2d 829). The presumption of constitutionality of a legislative act is well recognized and courts of first instance should not dec......
  • People v. Manasek
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • January 27, 1962
    ...such Technical defects in procedure, and will entertain the motion to interpose the demurrer. People v. Dill, supra; People v. Chester, 1956, 4 Misc.2d 949, 158 N.Y.S.2d 829. As to the first ground of demurrer, we are of the opinion that indictment conforms and complies substantially with t......
  • People v. Dill
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • February 25, 1957
    ...stands (People v. Kahn, 155 App.Div. 821, 140 N.Y.S. 618). The courts have overlooked technical defects in procedure (People v. Chester, 4 Misc.2d 949, 158 N.Y.S.2d 829). Since the notice of motion also seeks for 'such other and further relief,' this court, too, will overlook the defects in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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