People v. Rinaldi
| Decision Date | 14 June 1974 |
| Citation | 34 N.Y.2d 843,359 N.Y.S.2d 64 |
| Parties | , 316 N.E.2d 346 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Dominic S. RINALDI, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Maurice H. Nadjari, Sp. State Prosecutor (Bennett L. Gershman, New York City, and Stephen E. Powers, Binghamton, of counsel), for appellant.
Irwin N. Wilpon, Brooklyn, for respondent.
The court affirms on the memorandum at the Appellate Division, 44 A.D.2d 745, 354 N.Y.S.2d 482, with the added comment as to the second count of the indictment that the purported corroboration required under section 210.50 of the Penal Law was insufficient. The purported corroboration related to an inference drawn by defendant in his 1973 Grand Jury testimony regarding who was present at a 1966 meeting. * That inference, it eventuated, from the testimony of the corroborating witness, was an incorrect inference. Perjury depends upon a false assertion, not upon an inference stated to be such and which turns out to be incorrect. The testimony of the corroborating witness tended to establish that defendant incorrectly inferred who had been at the meeting, but did not corroborate, as required by law, the testimony of the other witness denying that any meeting had ever taken place.
I would modify the order of the Appellate Division by reversing so much thereof as dismissed the second count of the indictment and, as so modified, affirm. The defendant testified that he met with the Acting District Attorney and reported an allegation that a certain case before him in 1966 had been fixed. He further testified that the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the case was present at this meeting. Both the Acting District Attorney and the assistant in cahrge of the case denied that such a report had been brought to their attention and that such a meeting had occurred. If unexplained and uncontradicted, this evidence would be sufficient to warrant conviction by a trial jury. (People v. Ward, 37 A.D.2d 174, 176, 323 N.Y.S.2d 316, 318.) Moreover, the testimony of the Assistant District Attorney, whom defendant placed at the alleged meeting, sufficiently corroborated rated that of the Acting District Attorney. (Penal Law, § 210.50.)
JASEN, J., dissents in part and votes to modify in a separate opinion.
SAMUEL RABIN, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed.
* Defendant's relevant testimony reads as follows:
'A. Well, when we got there, I said I want to talk to Cahn. They said Cahn is on vacation.
'Q. You said you wanted to speak to District Attorney Cahn?
'A. That's right, but Cahn was on vacation and Devine was in charge.
'Q. Was Mr. Marchese present?
'A. He could have been. I don't recall. If he was the District Attorney that was in the case, then he would be the one. If he wasn't, I don't know who--
'Q. He was the District Attorney--
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tyler
... ... In support of that proposition, the appellant cites People v. Rinaldi, 34 N.Y.2d 843, 359 N.Y.S.2d 64, 316 N.E.2d 346 and argues that here the error is compounded in that the inferences are drawn not by the defendant, as in Rinaldi, but by the prosecutor himself ... The prosecutor responds by reasserting his position that in the full context of ... ...
-
People v. Pawley
...§ 191). Our result is also consistent with the holding in People v. Rinaldi, 44 A.D.2d 745, 354 N.Y.S.2d 482, aff'd 34 N.Y.2d 843, 359 N.Y.S.2d 64, 316 N.E.2d 346, in which an indictment for perjury was dismissed for insufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury due to lack of corrobo......
-
People v. Blumenthal
...(character and competence). What the defendant's understanding was is an operation of the mind. See People v. Rinaldi, 34 N.Y.2d 843, 359 N.Y.S.2d 64, 316 N.E.2d 346 (Mem. 1974). That count was properly Counts 6 (and 8 and 9) have to do with whether the defendant ever had a meeting at the D......