People v. Coumatos
| Decision Date | 19 January 1962 |
| Citation | 32 Misc.2d 1085,224 N.Y.S.2d 507 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Nicholas COUMATOS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of General Sessions |
Maurice J. McCarthy, Jr., New York City, for defendant.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. of New York County, New York City, Oscar J. Cohen, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York City, of counsel, for the People. JAMES E. MULACHY, Judge.
Defendant, an American citizen was tried on a forty-four count indictment for the crimes of grand larceny in the first degree by means of false and fraudulent representations made by the defendant, all of which crimes were allegedly committed within the confines of the United Nations Headquarters.
The evidence indicated that the defendant was employed on the premises at the United Nations Headquarters as an inventory clerk on the payroll of the United Nations, and that he was arrested by the New York City Police outside the United Nations Headquarters, to wit in Bronx County.
The defendant waived his right to a trial by jury and consented to proceed with the Court as the sole trier of the facts as well as the law.
In this case the defendant has objected to the entire proceeding on the stated ground that this Court is entirely without jurisdiction by virtue of his position as a United Nations employee and in view of the fact that all of the alleged acts constituting a violation of our Penal Law took place on the United Nations premises, which the United States ceded to this International Organization by agreement in 1947.
On June 26, 1947, the United States and the United Nations entered into an agreement commonly called the 'Headquarters Agreement', Title 22 U.S.C.A. § 287 note; 61 Stat. 756, Ch. 482, 80th Congress, First Session 1947. Under its provisions, diplomatic immunity was extended to four principal categories of representatives of member nations of the United Nations, i. e., ambassadors or ministers plenipotentiary; resident members or their staffs; persons designated in the United Nations Charter; and such other principal resident representatives of members to a specialized agency or members of their staffs.
Penal Law, Sec. 25 has codified this rule of national policy regarding immunity of foreign diplomats and their staffs in New York . (See also U.S.Const. Art. 3, Sec. 2).
However, this blanket immunity was not conferred upon officers and employees of the United Nations--as distinguished from the four categories of resident representatives of the United Nations--but their immunity is defined in the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (Title 22 U.S.C.A. § 288 et seq.).
'An employee of the United Nations, as such, is separate and distinct from persons designated by foreign governments to serve as their governmental representatives in or to the United Nations'. United States v. Melekh, 1960, D.C., 190 F.Supp. 67, 81. The distinction appears in Article 105 of the United Nations Charter (79th Congress, First Session, 1945, 59 Stat. 1033, 1053) and Title 22 U.S.C.A. Secs. 288b and 288d.
Under Section 288b, relating to immunity from suit and local processes, it is provided that representatives, employees and officers of international organizations have immunity only with respect to 'acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such [representatives], officers or employees'. See United States v. Coplon, D.C., 1949, 84 F.Supp. 472.
The Court notes that defendant, even as an United States citizen, by virtue of his employment with the United Nations, would gain the same immunity as any official of an international organization for all acts performed in his official capacity. (See Congressional Comments on the Immunities Act, 1945, U.S.Code Cong.Service, p. 946) .
In this case the defendant does not claim that he was or is a diplomatic officer accredited to the United Nations or to any other government; he does not claim that the acts charged against him in the indictment were, directly or remotely related to the functions of his United Nations employment and he does not claim that he was a representative of any government to the United Nations or a member of the staff of any representative to the United Nations.
What does the defendant offer as evidence regarding his claimed immunity? His claim is rested upon the Headquarters Agreement, Secs. 8 and 9. These provisions do not over-turn the Court's conclusions. Even when the Court has jurisdiction, as a matter of international comity, it should relinquish jurisdiction over a foreign diplomat when the merest 'suggestion' of immunity has been properly presented to it. (DeMiglio v. Paez, 1959, 18 Misc.2d 914, 189 N.Y.S.2d 593). It would seem reasonable to follow the same rule where a representative, officer or an employee of the United Nations was also concerned. However, that is not this case. Here, the defendant not being in any one of the above enumerated classifications is totally without immunity on this point. Cases on this subject are not numerous, but, from one of the earliest reported cases (County of Westchester v. Ranollo, 1946, 187 Misc. 777, 67 N.Y.S.2d 31) up to the present, never has a person situated in like circumstances, as the defendant in this case, been found by the courts to be immune from the jurisdiction of our federal, state or local law.
Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether we have jurisdiction over the acts as allegedly committed within the premises of the United Nations. This is the vital question that has not heretofore been clearly presented in the reported cases.
While it is true that the United States in ceding certain powers and lands to international control did agree that 'the Headquarters District shall be under the control and authority of the United Nations' (Laws of 80th Congress, First Session, Ch. 482, Public Law 357); and, under Section 9(a), supra, did agree further that the 'Headquarters District shall be inviolate' such agreement meant only that Federal, State and local officers shall not enter the Headquarters District to perform any official duties except upon the consent of the Secretary-General. Without prejudice to any of its charter provisions, the United Nations as part of its agreement with the United States, consented to prevent the Headquarters District from being used as a refuge by those seeking to avoid arrest or service of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Al Sharaf
...U.N. employment.’ " Id . at 535 (discussing People v. Coumatos , 224 N.Y.S.2d 504, 510 (Sup.Ct.1961), later opinion , 32 Misc.2d 1085, 224 N.Y.S.2d 507 (Sup.Ct.1961), aff'd mem. 20 A.D.2d 850, 247 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (N.Y.App.Div.1964) ). The De Luca court explained that " Coumatos is clearly ina......
-
De Luca v. United Nations Organization
...Boimah. Plaintiff would have us rely on People v. Coumatos, (Gen.Sess.N.Y.Co.1961) 224 N.Y.S.2d 504, later opinion, (Gen.Sess.N.Y.Co.1962) 32 Misc.2d 1085, 224 N.Y.S.2d 507, aff'd mem. (1st Dep't.1964) 20 A.D.2d 850, 247 N.Y.S.2d 1000, in which the trial court held that defendant, a U.N. in......
-
People v. Weiner, AP--17
...absence of any rules or regulations of the United Nations in conflict with the local law, the local law applies (see People v. Coumatos, 32 Misc.2d 1085, 224 N.Y.S.2d 507). Included in this court's determination of jurisdiction in this case is the issue of the propriety of the District Atto......
- People v. Coumatos
-
Chapter VIII. Decisions of national tribunals
...N.Y. Co. 1961) 224 N.Y.S.2d 504, later opinion, (Gen. Sess. N.Y. Co. 1962) 224 N.Y. S. 2d 504, later opinion (Gen. Sess. N.Y. Co. 1962) 224 N.Y.S.2d 507, aff’d mem. (1st Dep’t 1964) 247 N.Y.S.2d 1000, in which the trial court held that defendant, a United Nations inventory clerk indicted on......