People v. Meli

Decision Date16 December 1965
Citation48 Misc.2d 595,265 N.Y.S.2d 361
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Anthony J. MELI and Leland S. Beck, Defendant.
CourtNew York County Court

William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, for the People.

McCarthy & McGrath, New York City, for defendant Beck.

MARTIN M. KOLBRENER, Judge.

The defendant, an attorney, has been indicted on six counts, four of which are felonies and two misdemeanors, and moves to inspect the grand jury minutes and to dismiss the indictment as insufficient in law.

The indictment stems from the defendant's alleged acts in aiding and abetting his co-defendant, Meli, an attorney in the employ of the County Attorney's office, in receiving a bribe to violate his (Meli's) duty as a public officer and employee of the County of Nassau.

Each of he provisions of the Penal Law and the Nassau County Government Law referred to in each of the counts of the indictment relates to the misdeeds of public officers or employees. This defendant is not such a public officer or employee. Despite this, he may be indicted under these sections because in each count he is charged with aiding and abetting, and if the charges are proven he is a principal under Sec. 2 of the Penal Law. People v. Mullens, 292 N.Y. 408, 412, 55 N.E.2d 479, 481.

The Court has read the minutes of the testimony before the grand jury relating to this defendant and has inspected the exhibits. It appears that the co-defendant Meli was employed in the County Attorney's office of Nassau County as a title examiner, and therefore knew that the County was prepared to pay approximately $120,000 for a certain parcel of property then under consideration by the County. Meli procured another attorney as his co-conspirator (this man obtained immunity by reason of his testimony before the grand jury) to solicit the owners of the property to become their attorney in the condemnation proceeding. Meli and his co-conspirator thereupon agreed to share in the contingent fee to be paid by the owners, which was one-third of all sums over $90,000, which sum had been offered previously to the owners. Meli's co-conspirator, then, with the 'inside information' obtained an offer of $120,000 from the County in behalf of his 'clients', the deal was consummated, and he received a check of slightly more than $10,000 for his fee as attorney. His problem now was how to 'pay off' Meli, who insisted on cash. The co-conspirator refused to pay cash because, as he put it, he didn't want to pay income taxes on the money that he was paying out. Between them they devised the scheme of paying the money through defendant Beck, who so far as the minutes show, had no part in the transaction thus far.

Beck was a practising lawyer since 1955, had a law partnership and served as counsel for other lawyers in negligence cases and other litigation and title closings. He had known Meli for some years and permitted Meli to use his office to receive telephone calls and mail as an office associate. In addition, he appeared as counsel for Meli in numerous cases, received moneys in his behalf and closed titles for him.

The sole evidence which implicates Beck in this alleged illicit arrangement between Meli and the co-conspirator was the testimony by the co-conspirator that $5,000, earmarked for Meli, was given by the co-conspirator to Beck in the form of a check. This is admitted by Beck in his testimony before the grand jury. He states that he thought this transaction to be one of the many escrow transactions he had for Meli. However, there is damaging testimony by Meli's co-conspirator which incriminates Beck to this extent--he says that he told Beck that the check in question was a fee to cover a 'condemnation' matter, involving the Craftsman Construction Corporation. His testimony is that he told Beck that he needed a means to explain the payment of the check. Beck, he says, allegedly told him that they could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People ex rel. Loos v. Redman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 17 December 1965
  • People v. Altman
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • 22 September 1975
    ...is entitled to the presumption of innocence before the Grand Jury (People v. Bareika, 11 A.D.2d 292, 203 N.Y.S.2d 355; People v. Meli, 48 Misc.2d 595, 265 N.Y.S.2d 361; People v. Srebnik, 140 Misc. 694, 251 N.Y.S. 392), and an indictment must be dismissed unless the proof before that body e......

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