People v. Leto Bros. Inc.

Decision Date11 May 1972
Citation334 N.Y.S.2d 298,70 Misc.2d 347
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York v. LETO BROS. INC., Defendant.
CourtNew York County Court

Arnold W. Proskin, Dist. Atty., Albany County, Albany, for People of new york.

Kohn, Bookstein & Karp, Albany, for defendant.

JOHN J. McCALL, Judge.

A motion has been made by the corporate defendant for an order of the court directing the attorney for the defendant be entitled to inspect and copy or photograph (1) a record of the grand jury testimony given by the defendant, through its officers, agents or employees, pursuant to Section 240.20(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law (2) all books, records and papers belonging to the defendant or obtained from the defendant pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum, pursuant to Section 240.20(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law. The defendant corporation has been indicted for violation of Section 175.35 of the Penal Law, for offering false instruments for filing and for violation of Section 155.35 of the Penal Law by committing grand larceny, second degree. Both indictments charge the corporation acted by its agent and vice-president Joseph L. Leto, Jr. It is stated that Joseph Leto testified before the grand jury pursuant to subpoena and produced the corporate records pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum.

Section 240.20 is entirely new and it is New York's first attempt to codify the law of discovery in a criminal proceeding. Heretofore only the federal jurisdiction and a few states attempted codification and decisional law if any prevailed in most places with varying conclusions as to what should be permitted in the way of discovery. Present trends have been toward liberalization and in 1966, the pretrial discovery portion (Rule 16) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was substantially amended with a view to liberalization and an expansion of the permitted area. The New York statute with some structural and phraseological alterations is an adoption in substance of Rule 16.

Paragraph (1)(a) of the CPL, 240.20, reads as follows: 'Such discovery must be ordered with respect to property consisting of a record of testimony given by such defendant before the grand jury.' Subdivision (a) of the Federal Rule 16 is identical in terms. The people here assert that the word 'defendant' applies to individual defendants only, that testimony of agents, servants and employees of corporations is not meant to be included and really assert that the relief is not available to a corporate defendant.

The newness of the statute brings about the situation of there being no reported case involving interpretation of the point involved. In our pioneering, so to speak, resort must be had to the interpretation given the parent rule by the federal courts. In United States v. Hughes, 413 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir.), the precise question here presented was considered. The government argument there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Bennett
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 1973
    ...the Federal experience is important in delineating the scope of the discovery warranted by this legislation. People v. Leto Bros., Inc., 70 Misc.2d 347, 334 N.Y.S.2d 298. II. THE PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES BRADY AND PEOPLE v. ROSARIO The motions at bar reach far beyond......
  • People v. Green
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 19 Junio 1975
    ...Ct. of Mt. Vernon, 1973); People v. McMahon, 72 Misc.2d 1097, 341 N.Y.S.2d 318 (County Ct., Albany County, 1972); People v. Leto Bros., Inc., 70 Misc.2d 347, 334 N.Y.S.2d 298 (County Ct., Albany County, 1972); People v. Hvizd, 70 Misc.2d 654, 334 N.Y.S.2d 534 (County Ct., Westchester County......
  • People v. Christie
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 18 Junio 1986
    ...are statements of the corporate defendant. In support of this branch of their motion, defendants cite People v. Leto Brothers, 70 Misc.2d 347, 334 N.Y.S.2d 298 [Alb.Co.Ct.1972]. That case, which was decided soon after the adoption of the revised Criminal Procedure Law, held only that a corp......
  • People v. McMahon
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • 26 Octubre 1972
    ...of the statements of co-conspirators or co-defendants as involved. As this court has heretofore observed in People v. Leto Bros., Inc., 70 Misc.2d 347, 334 N.Y.S.2d 298, the parent rule is the best guide for interpreting Section Pre-trial discovery of exculpatory evidence is likewise not av......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT