People v. Hudson Valley Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 January 1916
• Citation: 217 N.Y. 172,111 N.E. 472
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HUDSON VALLEY CONST. CO. et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

217 N.Y. 172

111 N.E. 472

PEOPLE

v.HUDSON VALLEY CONST. CO. et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 25, 1916.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Criminal prosecution against the Hudson Valley Construction Company and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division in the Third Department (165 App. Div. 626, 151 N.Y. Supp. 314), entered January 13, 1915, affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court in Washington county on a verdict convicting the Hudson Valley Construction Company of grand larceny in the second degree, it appeals. Affirmed.

Edgar T. Brackett, of Saratoga Springs, for appellant.

Erskine C. Rogers, of Hudson Falls, for the People.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J.

This is a criminal prosecution against a corporation for obtaining money from the state by means of false pretenses. The offense specifically charged in the indictment is grand larceny in the first degree. In 1910 the Hudson Valley Construction Company entered into a contract with duly authorized state officers whereby it undertook to furnish labor and materials in repairing and constructing extra foundations for a dormitory building of the Great Meadow Prison in Washington county. This contract provided that the corporation should be paid the net cost of the labor and materials, plus a percentage profit thereon. The gravamen of the charge in the indictment is that by means of willfully false representations exaggerating the actual cost, the appellant obtained from the state $4,026.67 more than it was entitled to receive under the contract.

[1] The indictment was found in Washington county. It is attacked by demurrer on the ground, among others, that it does not allege that the crime or some part thereof was committed in that county. The indictment certainly leaves much to be desired in the way of definiteness. I think, however, it is possible to uphold it. After stating the false and fraudulent representations relied upon, it alleges, in the seventh paragraph, that the defendants Cornelius V. Collins, Franklin B. Ware, Charles A. Sussdorf, Charles P. Boland, William S. Hamill, Millard S. Goyer, Timothy D. Lenehan, Samuel Blumenthal, and Frank W. Lynch and each of them acting together and with intent to deprive and defraud the state of New York of its property and of the use and benefit thereof, “did unlawfully and feloniously at said time and place counsel, induce, and procure said Hudson Valley Construction Company to obtain said money by said false and fraudulent representations made as aforesaid, and did commit said crime of grand larceny in the first degree.” Looking back in the indictment for the antecedent of the word “place” in the allegation quoted, we find no place mentioned until we reach the third paragraph reciting the provisions of the contract for the repair of the dormitory building of the Great Meadow Prison “at Comstock, Washington county, N. Y.” In the second paragraph there is also mention of “Comstock, Washington county, N. Y.” This, therefore, must be the place at which the indictment charges that the Hudson Valley Construction Company was induced to obtain the money which it subsequently obtained from the state by false pretenses. Its assent to the inducements exerted by the other defendants made them all conspirators, and thus we have an allegation that a conspiracy to commit the crime of grand larceny in the first degree was formed in Washington county. This conspiracy initiating the offense constituted a part of the crime, and hence the grand jury of Washington county had jurisdiction to indict.

[2] There is another ground upon which the jurisdiction of the Washington county grand jury may be sustained. As has already been pointed out, the basis of the indictment is the accusation that the Hudson Valley Construction Company charged the state and obtained therefrom as the cost of work done and materials furnished at Great Meadow in Washington county more than the actual cost of such labor and materials. The doing of the work and the furnishing of the materials were acts requisite to the consummation of the offense of obtaining from the state therefor, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, moneys in excess of such actual cost and the percentage payable to the corporation as compensation for its services. These acts are alleged to have been done in Washington county, and if they were, the indictment could lawfully be found there.

“When a crime is committed, partly in one county and partly in another, or the acts or effects thereof, constituting or requisite to the consummation of the offense, occur in two or more counties, the jurisdiction is in either county.” Code Crim. Proc. § 134.

In People v. Mitchell, 49 App. Div. 531, 63 N.Y. Supp. 522, affirmed on opinion below, 168 N.Y. 604, 61 N.E. 182, it was held, against a strong dissent in both courts, that an indictment for larceny in appropriating property in the custody of the defendant...