People v. Katz
| Citation | 518 N.Y.S.2d 721,135 Misc.2d 857 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harry KATZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 09 July 1987 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term |
Harry Katz, pro se.
Philip L. Weinstein and Mark C. Cogan, New York City, for Harry Katz, defendant-appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Phyllis A. Monroe and Beth J. Thomas, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HUGHES, P.J., and RICCOBONO and OSTRAU, JJ.
Judgment of conviction rendered August 7, 1985 (Diaz, J.) affirmed.
We find that a corporation may be the subject and victim of aggravated harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.30. That statute provides in relevant part:
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he:
1. Communicates, or causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone ... in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication[.]
The prosecution established, beyond a reasonable doubt, a course of conduct consisting of a barrage of threatening telephone calls by defendant to corporate officers of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, made at all hours of the day and night at their homes and offices, intended to influence the corporation's decision-making process as regards employment within its beneficiary agencies, in which defendant demanded that a certain employee be fired on pain of a campaign by defendant to impair the Federation's ability to carry out its charitable function. Defendant's words and actions exceeded the bounds of legitimate communication and constituted harassment, or so a jury could reasonably find. A corporation may be the object of extortionate or coercive threats (People v. Lamm, 292 N.Y. 224, 54 N.E.2d 374; United States v. Lewis, 7th Cir., 797 F.2d 358), and in the situation where repeated telephone threats are directed to corporate officers in their official capacities concerning corporate affairs, it is fair to conclude that the corporation itself has been disrupted or harassed. Hence, it is appropriate that a corporation, as well as an individual, be construed as a "person" within the intendment of the statute (Penal Law §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vives v. City of New York
...that her conduct, which violated section 240.30(1), qualified as constitutionally protected speech"); People v. Katz, 135 Misc.2d 857, 518 N.Y.S.2d 721, 723 (1st Dep't 1987) ("Defendant's ... argument that section 240.30(1) is void for vagueness ... is ... unavailing."). These cases, in con......
-
Vives v. City of New York
...that her conduct[, which violated section 240.30(1),] qualifie[d] as constitutionally protected speech"); People v. Katz, 135 Misc.2d 857, 518 N.Y.S.2d 721, 723 (1st Dep't 1987) ("Defendant's ... argument that [section 240.30(1)] is void for vagueness ... is ... unavailing."). These cases, ......
-
Katz v. Morgenthau, YM-YWHA
...raised this same point in appealing his conviction to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, see People v. Katz, 135 Misc.2d 857, 518 N.Y.S.2d 721 (1st Dep't), appeal denied, 70 N.Y.2d 713, 513 N.E.2d 1316, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1048 (Ct.App.1987), and in seeking to appeal that affirma......
-
Schlagler v. Phillips, Docket No. 98-7062
...590 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y.Sup.App.Term 1992), aff'g 147 Misc.2d 482, 556 N.Y.S.2d 231 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.1990); People v. Katz, 135 Misc.2d 857, 518 N.Y.S.2d 721 (N.Y.Sup.App.Term 1987). On appeal Schlagler supports the district court's decision not to abstain by citing City of Houston v. Hill, ......