People v. DeGrandis
| Decision Date | 28 May 1962 |
| Citation | 228 N.Y.S.2d 875,16 A.D.2d 834 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph DeGRANDIS, Frank DeForte and Ernest Zundel, Defendants-Appellants; et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jacques M. Schiffer, New York City, for appellants; Abraham W. Sereysky, New York City, of counsel.
Manuel W. Levine, Dist. Atty., Mineola, for respondent; Henry P. DeVine, Mineola, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and KLEINFELD, BRENNAN, HILL and RABIN, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by each of the three named defendants (DeGrandis, DeForte and Zundel) from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, entered June 21, 1960 after a jury trial, convicting him of (a) conspiracy to violate section 340 of the General Business Law (Penal Law, § 580, subd. 1); (b) coercion (Penal Law, § 530); and (c) extortion (Penal Law, §§ 850, 851), and imposing sentence.
As to each defendant, judgment affirmed.
Defendants cannot invoke the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the union records which were received in evidence. Such records were not the defendants' private, personal papers; they were the property of the union. Whatever possession the defendants had of these records was merely in their capacity as representatives of the union, and not in their private or individual capacity (United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed.2d 1542; see, also, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 646-657, 661-665, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081; and Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 587, 66 S.Ct. 1256, 90 L.Ed. 1453, as to the interrelationship between the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, U.S.Const.).
We have examined all the other contentions made by the appellants and find them to be untenable.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mancusi
...because the books and records were not his personal or private papers, but rather were the property of the union. People v. DeGrandis, 16 A.D.2d 834, 228 N.Y.S.2d 875, aff'd, 12 N.Y.2d 812, 236 N.Y.S.2d 63, 187 N.E.2d 130 (1962). Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was subsequentl......
-
United States v. Mancusi
...So ordered. Assigned counsel James L. Lekin has devoted much time to this matter with skill and diligence. 1 People v. DeGrandis, 16 A.D.2d 834, 228 N.Y.S.2d 875 (2d Dep't 1962). 2 People v. DeGrandis, 12 N.Y.2d 812, 236 N.Y.S.2d 63, 187 N.E.2d 130 (1962). 3 DeGrandis, et al. v. New York, 3......
-
People v. Angevine
...S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, esp. fn at 223, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669; cf. People v. De Grandis, 16 A.D.2d 834, 228 N.Y.S.2d 875, aff'd 12 N.Y.2d 812, 236 N.Y.S.2d 63, 187 N.E.2d 130).' (emphasis As stated in Jones, supra, 362 U.S. 257, at page 261, ......
-
People v. Cefaro
...806, 257 N.Y.S.2d 602, 205 N.E.2d 696; People v. Lane, 10 N.Y.2d 347, 353, 223 N.Y.S.2d 197, 198, 179 N.E.2d 339, 340; People v. DeGrandis, 16 A.D.2d 834, 228 N.Y.S.2d 875. If, as I believe, the defendants had no status (standing) to claim the protection of Barth's rights under the Constitu......