People v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 18 May 1982 |
| Citation | 451 N.Y.S.2d 30,56 N.Y.2d 51,436 N.E.2d 480 |
| Parties | , 436 N.E.2d 480 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sheldon SANDERS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
On this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the recorded statements of a third party inculpating the defendant in the crimes charged were properly admitted into evidence under the coconspirators' exception to the hearsay rule. In resolving this issue, we must determine whether the use of these recorded statements violated defendant's constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." (U.S.Const., 6th Amdt.; N.Y.Const., art. I, § 6.)
In the late summer months of 1976, Dr. Wallace B. Lehman, a Nassau County orthopedic specialist, contacted his attorney, Paul Goldberg, and informed him that a hearing was to be held by the Nassau County Medical Society to determine whether to suspend the doctor's authority to treat patients under the Workers' Compensation Law. Goldberg agreed to represent Dr. Lehman at the hearing. Although the Medical Society found that the charges against Dr. Lehman were without substance, the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, Arthur Cooperman, determined that the doctor had violated various provisions of the law and accordingly announced the suspension of Lehman's authority to treat patients under the law effective December 31, 1976. Dr. Lehman, through his attorney, then decided to seek judicial review of this determination by way of an article 78 proceeding.
On December 15, 1976, Goldberg attended a dinner meeting sponsored by the New York State Society of Orthopedic Surgeons. After the meeting ended, Goldberg was introduced to the society's counsel, defendant Sheldon Sanders. At that time, it was agreed that Goldberg and the defendant would appear as cocounsel in the Lehman v. Cooperman proceeding.
On December 23, 1976, Goldberg instituted an article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, New York County, seeking to set aside the determination suspending Dr. Lehman's authority to treat workers' compensation patients. In addition to filing the petition, Goldberg applied for an order staying the administrative determination. After filing these papers, Goldberg had a telephone conversation with the defendant in which the defendant told Goldberg that he had spoken to his "friend" and that his "friend" had told him he thought Goldberg's request for a stay would be granted. In an earlier conversation, defendant had told Goldberg that he had a "friend" who was "one of the chief law assistants" at Supreme Court, New York County.
Goldberg's request for a stay was granted on December 29, 1976. Approximately two weeks later, Goldberg again spoke with the defendant over the telephone. In this conversation, the defendant told Goldberg that he knew the stay would be granted because he paid his "friend who worked in Supreme Court, New York County" $250. When Goldberg exclaimed "You what?", the defendant repeated that he had paid his "friend" $250 to obtain the stay.
After initially discussing the matter with certain members of the Committee on Grievances of the New York City Bar Association, Goldberg met with the New York County District Attorney on January 19, 1977. Based on the information about the defendant provided by Goldberg, the District Attorney began an investigation into corruption in the New York County Supreme Court. Goldberg agreed to assist the District Attorney in this endeavor, and consented to having all his conversations pertaining to the investigation recorded.
On January 21, 1977, Goldberg, equipped with a recording device, met with defendant in his Nassau County office. At this meeting, defendant told Goldberg about a "friend" of his named "Abe Brown" who was "one of the chief opinion clerks in Special Term in New York County." According to defendant, Brown was a "crook" who could give them anything they wanted "down there", for example: Defendant stated that he had "dealt with Abe before" and, in fact, had called Brown concerning the Lehman v. Cooperman proceeding. Defendant confirmed that, upon an earlier visit to Brown's house, he had paid Brown $250 in connection with Goldberg's earlier application for a stay. Defendant also stated that Brown wanted $500 for "the rest of it." When asked by Goldberg what Brown would do for this money, defendant responded: "We win * * * on the grounds that the Chairman was arbitrary and capricious." Although the defendant was of the opinion that Goldberg would win the case even without paying Brown, defendant stated that, if it was his case alone, he "would do everything." Defendant also cautioned Goldberg that their "clients haven't got the slightest idea of any of this bullshit." Later in the same conversation, defendant returned to the subject of Abram Brown and reminded Goldberg that he had "laid out $250" and suggested that this amount be added to their client's bill. Goldberg replied that he would "think about it."
Goldberg next spoke with the defendant on January 27, 1977. Defendant asked Goldberg whether he had decided to enlist the services of Brown. Goldberg replied that Brown "might be useful", particularly in light of a motion Goldberg had made the day before to strike the answer that had been filed in the Lehman v. Cooperman proceeding. Defendant agreed to contact Brown and arrange a meeting with Goldberg. Defendant told Goldberg that he would not be present at this meeting because he did not "want to be a broker in the deal" and that he did not "want any fall offs" or "commissions".
Over the next few days, defendant made a number of unsuccessful attempts to contact Brown by telephone. On February 2, 1977, Goldberg called defendant's office and was told by his secretary that defendant had left Brown's telephone number, that Goldberg should call Brown, and that Goldberg should tell Brown that the defendant had told Goldberg to call. Goldberg followed defendant's instructions and a meeting was scheduled with Brown the following day at Brown's office. At this meeting, Brown told Goldberg that he was familiar with the case of Lehman v. Cooperman since he had reviewed the original papers when they were filed and because he had discussed the matter with the defendant. Brown informed Goldberg that he "got the stay" by speaking to the "guy working with" the Judge who granted it. Brown then advised Goldberg that the best course would be to delay the litigation, and told Goldberg that he would see what he could do in terms of losing the papers that had been filed. After leaving Brown, Goldberg called the defendant and told him about the meeting with Brown. When told by Goldberg that Brown had not mentioned "a number or an amount", defendant said: "All right he's afraid of you * * * I'll talk to him tonight, I'll tell him that he can have any transaction he wants directly with you."
On February 4, 1977, defendant told Goldberg that he had spoken with Brown and that he would take care of everything. Defendant told Goldberg to "do what tells you" and that the plan was to move the case "to the right people". Later that same day, Goldberg sent the defendant a check in the amount of $125. This check was accompanied by a note in which Goldberg indicated that the $125 represented his "share of the disbursements" that they discussed earlier. According to Goldberg's testimony at trial, the "disbursements" referred to the $250 that defendant had paid to Brown to obtain the stay. Goldberg's $125 check was later returned in canceled form, bearing the defendant's indorsement.
On February 8, 1977, Brown informed Goldberg that he had spoken with the "guy" who was handling Goldberg's motion to strike the answer in the Lehman v. Cooperman proceeding and that there would be no problem. Two days later, the motion to strike was granted. On February 15, 1977, Brown again spoke with Goldberg and assured him that the granting of the motion to strike the answer would delay the proceeding until spring. Brown then suggested that they ought to give the "guy" who handled the matter a "certificate" of "one unit * * * American currency" and that "applicable taxes, handling charges and all that" could be taken care of at a later date. The next day, Goldberg went to Brown's office and paid him $100 in cash.
In the conversations between Brown and Goldberg in the weeks that followed, Brown told Goldberg that the Lehman v. Cooperman proceeding would continue to be delayed and that "everything's progressing according to plan." In one of these conversations, Brown warned Goldberg not to call him at his office unless Goldberg kept the conversation "cryptic". On March 23, 1977, Goldberg called the defendant and the defendant asked him how the "new deal" was working out. After Goldberg said "fine", the defendant proclaimed that it was "a good connection".
On May 11, 1977, Goldberg telephoned the defendant and told him that a cross petition had been filed by their adversary seeking to remove the Lehman v. Cooperman proceeding to the Appellate Division. Defendant replied that Goldberg should "keep it in the Supreme Court" and "it drag" because he thought Goldberg had "a good situation down there." Later that day, Goldberg called Brown and informed him about the attempt to remove the proceeding from Supreme Court. Brown also told Goldberg that he would be "better off down here" since there was "more control over the situation." The next day, Brown was told by Goldberg that Brown's "cousin" thought it best to keep the proceeding in Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haywood v. Portuando
...are admissible against all other coconspirators as an exception to the general rule against hearsay." People v. Sanders, 56 N.Y.2d 51, 62, 451 N.Y.S.2d 30, 436 N.E.2d 480 (1982); accord People v. Bac Tran, 80 N.Y.2d 170, 179, 589 N.Y.S.2d 845, 603 N.E.2d 950 (1992). The New York rule differ......
-
People v. Cook
...to prohibit all hearsay exceptions (Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537, 65 L.Ed.2d 597; People v. Sanders, 56 N.Y.2d 51, 63, 451 N.Y.S.2d 30, 436 N.E.2d 480). The acceptance of hearsay exceptions comes from "necessity" for their use and not a reading of the Constitution ......
-
Cuomo v. Greenberg
...relied on by the motioncourt is rendered admissible through invocation of the co-conspirator exception. In People v. Sanders, 56 N.Y.2d 51, 451 N.Y.S.2d 30, 436 N.E.2d 480 (1982), the Court was faced with the question of whether certain recorded conversations with a person deceasedat the ti......
-
People v. Lopez
...461 N.E.2d 276 [1984]; People v. Flecha, 60 N.Y.2d 766, 767, 469 N.Y.S.2d 671, 457 N.E.2d 777 [1983]; People v. Sanders, 56 N.Y.2d 51, 66–67, 451 N.Y.S.2d 30, 436 N.E.2d 480 [1982]; People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d at 174, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709). Errors of this type “are considered har......
-
Hearsay
...bear some indicia of reliability suicient to justify their admissibility, even in the absence of cross-examination. People v. Sanders , 56 N.Y.2d 51, 451 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1982); People v. Comfort , 151 A.D.2d 1019, 542 N.Y.S.2d 84 (4th Dept. 1989). Judicial admissions Admissions made in the cou......
-
Hearsay
...bear some indicia of reliability suicient to justify their admissibility, even in the absence of cross-examination. People v. Sanders , 56 N.Y.2d 51, 451 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1982); People v. Comfort , 151 A.D.2d 1019, 542 N.Y.S.2d 84 (4th Dept. 1989). Judicial admissions Admissions made in the cou......
-
Hearsay
...bear some indicia of reliability sufficient to justify their admissibility, even in the absence of cross-examination. People v. Sanders , 56 N.Y.2d 51, 451 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1982); People v. Comfort , 151 A.D.2d 1019, 542 N.Y.S.2d 84 (4th Dept. 1989). Judicial admissions Informal judicial admiss......
-
Table of cases
...629 N.Y.S.2d 215 (1st Dept. 1995), §§ 15:30, 15:100 People v. Sanchez, 99 N.Y.2d 622, 760 N.Y.S.2d 391 (2003), § 20:30 People v. Sanders , 56 N.Y.2d 51, 451 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1982), § 5:180 People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849 (1974), §§ 1:280, 8:10, 15:110 People v. Santana, 80 N......