People v. Metropolitan Police Conference of N.Y., Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 September 1996
• Citation: 231 A.D.2d 445,647 N.Y.S.2d 11
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN POLICE CONFERENCE OF N.Y., INC., et al., Defendants. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK DISTRICT ATTORNEY INVESTIGATORS POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION INC., et al., Defendants, and John Trotter, Ltd., et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 11

647 N.Y.S.2d 11

231 A.D.2d 445

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN POLICE CONFERENCE OF N.Y., INC., et al., Defendants.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK DISTRICT ATTORNEY INVESTIGATORS POLICE

BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION INC., et al., Defendants,

and

John Trotter, Ltd., et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Sept. 19, 1996.

Jacqueline M. Mega, for Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant.

Paula Schwartz Frome, for Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ELLERIN, RUBIN, NARDELLI and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 13, 1995, which, after a hearing, inter alia, held defendants John Grillo and John Trotter, Ltd. in civil and criminal contempt of a certain consent judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County and, on the finding of criminal contempt, fined them $1,000 each, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to remand the matter for a recalculation of penalties and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Defendants Grillo and Trotter were properly held in civil and criminal contempt since the record amply supports, beyond a reasonable doubt, the hearing court's conclusion that they violated a consent judgment (see, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v. Department of Envtl. Conservation, 70 N.Y.2d 233, 240, 519 N.Y.S.2d 539, 513 N.E.2d 706; Matter of Gouiran Holdings v. McCormick, 163 A.D.2d 44, 558 N.Y.S.2d 18, lv. dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 851, 560 N.Y.S.2d 991, 561 N.E.2d 891).

Defendants Grillo and Trotter were not entitled to the prior statements of witnesses at the hearing since the discovery rule announced in People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64, as codified in CPL 240.45(1)(a), is not applicable to criminal contempt proceedings arising out of a civil action, which are civil special proceedings governed by the CPLR (Matter of Department of Hous. Preservation & Dev. v. Deka Realty Corp., 208 A.D.2d 37, 51, 620 N.Y.S.2d 837 and cases cited therein).

Although the IAS court found defendants in criminal contempt for multiple acts of disobedience of the consent judgment, consisting of 44 fraudulent telephone solicitations over a span of three years, it determined, citing Deka Realty,...