People v. Wolff

Decision Date21 October 1965
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Philip E. WOLFF, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Arthur A. Darrigrand, Utica, for appellant (Grant E. Johnson, Utica, of counsel).

Henry E. Taylor, Syracuse, for respondent.

Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, HENRY and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM.

Respondent indicted for conspiracy to commit abortion. County Court dismissed the indictment on the ground that payment of a sum of money by the proposed victim of the abortion to a co-conspirator did not constitute an overt act. In our view, an abourtion is a felony committed upon the person of another within the meaning of Section 583 of the Penal Law, so that the commission of an overt act was not an essential element of the crime. (cf. People v. Fishback, 273 App.Div. 914, 77 N.Y.S.2d 503) Even if the commission of an overt act were necessary to complete a conspiracy to commit abortion, the indictment is sufficient. Payment of money to a co-conspirator to secure his agreement to the conspiracy is regarded as an act merely cementing the conspiracy and not as an overt act committed in furtherance thereof. (People v. Hines, 284 N.Y. 93, 29 N.E.2d 483) However, if the money is paid to a co-conspirator to be delivered to another in payment of the services constituting the principal crime, such payment is held to constitute an overt act. (People v. De Cabia, 10 Mis.2d 923, 172 N.Y.S.2d 1004, aff'd 8 A.D.2d 825, 190 N.Y.S.2d 142, aff'd 7 N.Y.2d 823, 196 N.Y.S.2d 701, 164 N.E.2d 720) In this case, the allegation that payment was made 'for the purpose of securing the services of a person, or persons unknown, to perform an illegal abortion' sufficiently states the commission of an overt act.

Order unanimously reversed on the law and indictment reinstated.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Menache
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 30, 1983
    ...conspirators may merely be cementing the agreement itself (cf People v. Russo, 57 A.D.2d 578, 393 N.Y.S.2d 435, supra; People v. Wolff, 24 A.D.2d 828, 264 N.Y.S.2d 40) or may be an overt act in furtherance of the agreement (see People v. Sher, supra, 68 Misc.2d pp. 925-926, 329 N.Y.S.2d 2; ......
  • People v. Wisan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1986
    ...thereof (see, People v. Teeter, 62 A.D.2d 1158, 404 N.Y.S.2d 210, affd 47 N.Y.2d 1002, 420 N.Y.S.2d 217, 394 N.E.2d 286; People v. Wolff, 24 A.D.2d 828, 264 N.Y.S.2d 40; People v. DeCabia, 10 Misc.2d 923, 172 N.Y.S.2d 1004, affd. 8 A.D.2d 825, 190 N.Y.S.2d 142, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 823, 196 N.Y.S......
  • People v. Teeter
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 14, 1978
    ...is regarded as an act merely cementing the conspiracy and not as an overt act committed in furtherance thereof" (People v. Wolff, 24 A.D.2d 828, 264 N.Y.S.2d 40; People v. DeCabia, 10 Misc.2d 923, 172 N.Y.S.2d 1004, affd. 8 A.D.2d 825, 190 N.Y.S.2d 142, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 823, 196 N.Y.S.2d 701,......
  • People v. Ortiz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 6, 1984
    ...923, 172 N.Y.S.2d 1004, affd. 8 A.D.2d 825, 190 N.Y.S.2d 142, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 823, 196 N.Y.S.2d 701, 164 N.E.2d 720; People v. Wolff, 24 A.D.2d 828, 264 N.Y.S.2d 40, and People v. Teeter, 86 Misc.2d 532, 382 N.Y.S.2d 938, affd. 62 A.D.2d 1158, 404 N.Y.S.2d 210, affd. 47 N.Y.2d 1002, 420 N.Y.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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