Summary
reversing extortion conviction of union agent allegedly involved in a scheme to require local businesses to use certain union “cartmen” to dispose of their garbage; proof failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that “ the appellant was actuated by the purpose of obtaining a financial benefit for himself or his codefendants and was not attempting in good faith to advance the cause of unionism; or that there was any relationship among appellant and his codefendants which would sustain the inference that they aided each other in securing any personal benefit from the termination of the services of the nonunion cartmen”
Summary of this case from U.S. v. LarsonOpinion
Argued June 6, 1960
Decided July 8, 1960
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, PAUL J. WIDLITZ, J.
Manuel W. Levine, District Attorney ( Henry P. Devine of counsel), for appellant.
Sol Gelb, Nicholas Castellano and Chester E. Kleinberg for Vincent J. Squillante and Nunzio Squillante, respondents.
Harry J. Halperin, Samuel L. Scholer, Shirley R. Levittan and Edward J. Neary for Bernard Adelstein, respondent.
Orders affirmed; no opinion.
Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD and FOSTER. Judges FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS and BURKE dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum: The question of law before us is whether from any view of the testimony there was a question of fact regarding defendants' guilt which should have been submitted to the jury and not disposed of by dismissal in the appellate court ( People v. Bellows, 281 N.Y. 67, 73). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we are obliged to do upon this appeal, we think that the jury could properly conclude that defendants were guilty of extortion, as charged in the indictment.