People v. Squillante

• Decision Date: 02 May 1958
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Vincent J. SQUILLANTE, Munzio Squillante and Bernard Adelstein, Defendants.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 749

173 N.Y.S.2d 749

12 Misc.2d 514

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Vincent J. SQUILLANTE, Munzio Squillante and Bernard Adelstein, Defendants.

Nassau County Court.

May 2, 1958.

Frank A. Gulotta, Dist. Atty. of Nassau County, Mineola.

Dreiband, Blucker & Silberman, New York City, for defendant, Bernard Adelstein.

CYRIL J. BROWN, Judge.

The defendant, Bernard Adelstein, demurs to an indictment charging him and his co-defendants with the crime of Extortion, in violation of Section 850 of the Penal Law. The indictment consists of four counts, each of which alleges that during the month of April, 1955 the defendants, each aiding and abetting the other and acting through their agent, Thomas Nolan, an alleged business agent and representative of a local sanitation workers' union, made threats to various store owners in this county and as a result thereof obtained property from the victims with their consent. The alleged threats were oral statements that unless each store owner ceased having his garbage and refuse removed by a certain non-union garbage and refuse collector, the union would post a picket-line around the owner's store. In addition, Nolan is alleged to have demanded that his victims hire a collector from a list of firms, alleged to be union firms, at stated sums per month. Nolan further indicated to the threatened parties that the picket-line, which would result from the store owner's failure to comply with his demands, would cause injury to the store owner's business income and that the defendants would prevent the removal of garbage and refuse from the business premises, all of which would result in substantial injury to the business and property of the victim. The indictment further alleges, however, that the carting firms listed as union firms were, in fact, non-union.

The demurrer to the indictment interposed by the defendant Adelstein is based on two grounds:

1) The facts stated do not constitute a crime; and

2) The indictment contains matter which, if true, would constitute a legal justification for the acts charged, or other legal bar to the prosecution of the crime charged. (Code of Crim.Proc. § 323).

In support of his second point the defendant argues that if the union had a right to picket by virtue of a labor dispute with the store owners, then there is a legal bar to the prosecution herein. He urges that all that Nolan sought to do was to induce the store owners, by lawful means, to use union garbage collectors.

For purposes of this demurrer the Court must accept as true the factual allegations contained therein (People v. Kalbfeld, 124 Misc. 200, 207 N.Y.S. 744). It is not necessary at this time to examine into the legality of the threatened picketing by determining whether the picketing would have amounted to a primary or a secondary boycott since the indictment alleges that the intended beneficiaries of the proposed picketing were non-union carters. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that a union representative can throw a picket-line about a place of business in an effort to exact benefits for those who have no connection with the union. Thus, even aside from the issue of primary or secondary union activity, the acts by the defendants' agent are not justifiable in law.

As to his contention that the facts stated do not constitute the crime of extortion, the defendant insists that there was no threat to do an unlawful injury to the property of another and, further, that no property was obtained by the defendants from any of their alleged victims. In addition he claims that the alleged acts, if true, would constitute, at best, the crimes of conspiracy and coercion, which are misdemeanors, but would not constitute...