People v. Ebuzome
| Decision Date | 12 January 1981 |
| Citation | 435 N.Y.S.2d 243,107 Misc.2d 464 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Adolphus EBUZOME, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty. of Queens County, Kew Gardens, for the People; Robert J. Winnemore, Elmhurst, of counsel.
Abraham Schwartz, Long Island City, for defendant.
Defendant is charged with a violation of section 200.00 of the Penal Law, Bribery in the Second Degree, which provides:
"A person is guilty of bribery in the second degree when he confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a public servant (emphasis added) upon an agreement or understanding that such public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision or exercise of discretion of a public servant will thereby be influenced."
The "public servant" mentioned in the indictment is a U.S. Customs Inspector. The issue is whether a U.S. Customs Inspector is a "public servant" within the following definition of section 10.00, subdivision 15 of the Penal Law:
(Emphasis added.)
Defendant contends in his motion to dismiss the Bribery count of the indictment that a U.S. Customs Inspector is not the "public servant" contemplated under New York law.
It is not to be supposed that the Legislature will deliberately place words in a statute which are intended to serve no purpose (People v. Dethloff, 283 N.Y. 309, 28 N.E.2d 850). It is, however, unclear what the Legislature intends by the specific inclusion of the words " * * * of the state or of any political subdivision thereof or of any governmental instrumentality within the state * * *." It can be argued that the legislative intent is clearly to prohibit payments made to public servants defined as public officers or employees only of the State of New York. It is also possible that the statute encompasses U.S. Customs Officers as part of "any governmental instrumentality within the state."
The Practice Commentaries amplify this definition by stating that the term "public servant" includes "every person specially retained to perform some government service" (Hechtman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 39, Penal Law, § 10.00, p. 23 ).
While a U.S. Customs Inspector may certainly be considered a person who is specially retained to perform some government service, by its inclusion of the words "of the state" in its definition, the Penal Law may require a more specific relation to the sovereign powers of the State of New York.
The Suffolk County Supreme Court in Smith v. Jansen, 85 Misc.2d 81, 379 N.Y.S.2d 254, is helpful in its definition of the term "public office":
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Farrar
...of criminal statutes, "does not permit an essential part of a statute to be ignored in a particular case" (People v. Ebuzome, 107 Misc.2d 464, 466, 435 N.Y.S.2d 243). To read section 165.30 in a manner which excludes "tricks" and "swindles" would be to ignore an essential part of the statut......
-
People v. Smith
...within the state" or to restrict the statute's reach to state instrumentalities. This question was addressed in People v. Ebuzome, 107 Misc.2d 464, 435 N.Y.S.2d 243 (Sup.Ct.Queens Co, 1981), where the defendant sought to dismiss a count of bribery under P.L. Sec. 200.00, on the grounds that......
-
Onondaga County District Attorney's Office to File a Sealed Grand Jury Report as a Public Record, Matter of
...New York State employees, but is also aimed at every person specially retained to perform some government service (People v. Ebuzome, 107 Misc.2d 464, 466, 435 N.Y.S.2d 243). Our view should not be blind to the reality of a device molded to circumvent disclosure of the report. Therefore, we......
-
People v. Tanner
...statutory construction, this court must assume that the legislature included this term for a specific reason. See People v. Ebuzome, 107 Misc.2d 464, 466, 435 N.Y.S.2d 243 (Sup.Ct.Queens County 1981). Thus, since the factual allegations in the complaint do not establish the essential elemen......