People v. Louis Meyers & Son, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1965 |
| Citation | 260 N.Y.S.2d 68,23 A.D.2d 942 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. LOUIS MEYERS & SON, INC., Defendant, Textile Banking Company, Inc. et al., Respondents. |
Andrew H. Schlusberg, Dist. Atty., Gloversville, for appellant.
Floyd J. Reinhart, Amsterdam, Robert P. Best, Gloversville, for respondent Textile Banking Co., Inc.
George F. Murphy, Johnstown, for respondent Jerome Fox.
Before GIBSON, P. J., and REYNOLDS, TAYLOR, AULISI and HAMM, JJ.
Appeal by the People from orders of the Supreme Court, Fulton County, dismissing the entire indictment as to respondent Textile Banking Company, Inc. (Textile) and the third and fourth counts of the indictment as to Jerome Fox, President of Louis Meyers & Son, Inc. (Meyers).
The indictment charges Textile, Meyers and Fox with grand larceny, conspiracy to commit grand larceny, failing to pay wages to employees in violation of § 1272 of the Penal Law, conspiracy to violate § 1272 and 298 counts of petit larceny all arising out of the failure to pay Blue Cross and Blue Shield premiums withheld from the pay of Meyers' employees during April and May 1963. With respect to the larceny charges against Textile, it is undisputed that the money involved was collected from the Meyers' employees and was not paid to the Blue Cross or Blue Shield and quite clear that Textile exerted substantial influence on the operations of Meyers during the period involved. Nevertheless, there is absolutely no proof in the grand jury minutes which would support a finding of the requisite mens rea on the part of Textile to sustain a charge of larceny. There is absolutely no proof that Textile misappropriated the funds with intent to permanently deprive the Meyers' employees thereof; there is proof only that Textile felt Blue Cross and Blue Shield were in the same position as Meyers' other general unsecured creditors. As to the counts alleging violation of and conspiracy to violate § 1272, the court below quite properly dismissed them as to both Textile and Fox. Section 1272, being malum prohibitum, must be closely construed (People v. Grass, 257 App.Div. 1, 4, 11 N.Y.S.2d 803, 805). The failure to pay insurance premiums is not a failure to pay wages (People v. Vetri, 309 N.Y. 401, 131 N.E.2d 568).
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Art Steel Co., Inc.
...the Labor Law (which imposes criminal sanctions for failure to pay direct wages) was to be strictly construed, People v. Louis Meyers & Son, Inc., 23 A.D.2d 942, 260 N.Y.S.2d 68. As to the 61 employees who were discharged by the bankruptcy trustee on February 27, 1984, there is no dispute t......
-
Kasper v. Roberts
...in a criminal court, and not by the wage earner in the context of a civil proceeding. ( Section 196 Labor Law; People v. Louis Meyers & Son, 23 A.D.2d 942, 260 N.Y.S.2d 68). However, it should be noted, that, even if this court had jurisdiction of an Article 6 violation, it would have deter......
- Ripley v. Risedorph