People v. Ruiz

130 Misc. 2d 191, 496 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3159
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 7, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 130 Misc. 2d 191 (People v. Ruiz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Ruiz, 130 Misc. 2d 191, 496 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3159 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Harold J. Rothwax, J.

The instant proceeding involves 14 separate indictments. Of [192]*192the defendants named therein, three have been indicted twice, individually; two others have been jointly indicted twice; another has been indicted once; two others have been jointly indicted once; another two have been indicted twice, once jointly and severally; and yet another group of four has been jointly indicted, for a total of 14 defendants. The People move to consolidate the 14 indictments and 14 defendants in a single trial pursuant to CPL 200.40 (2).

This series of indictments arose out of an investigation into the use of coercive practices to force legal tenants from their apartments, allegedly for the commercial benefit of their landlords. A group of 21 people, led by Morris Lender and Hardmon Lambert (the Lender-Lambert group), was found to have moved from building to building in New York County over a period of five years, from 1979 to 1984, threatening, intimidating, menacing, assaulting and burglarizing tenants and otherwise destroying the property of established residents, resulting in the total or almost total depopulation of at least 20 buildings. There is reasonable cause to believe that Lender and Lambert directed these activities pursuant to agreements with owners of each building, whereby a fixed price would be paid for each tenant who surrendered an apartment as a result of the group’s practices. Lender, Lambert and all but two of the apprehended members of their group have pleaded guilty to conspiracy, coercion, burglary and related charges.

Twelve of the 14 remaining defendants are owners of buildings vacated or attempted to be vacated by the Lender-Lambert group. Each of these defendants is charged with having conspired with the Lender-Lambert group to commit coercion and other crimes by forcing their legal tenants to abandon their apartments, and with multiple counts of coercion and grand larceny in regard to each of their individual tenants. The People concede that there is insufficient evidence to link all 12 landlords together in a single conspiracy. There is no proof that any landlord was motivated by anything other than his own economic interest, or shared any intent to commit crimes against tenants other than those as to whom he had such an interest. The evidence suggests that each owner or group of owners dealt directly and separately with Lender and Lambert, according to building. No one aspect of the operation depended upon or even related to the success of any other, beyond consideration of the availability of the Lender-Lambert group. It cannot be said, therefore, that each landlord who employed the Lender-Lambert group of necessity knew the [193]*193scope of the operation and shared all of its purposes. (Cf. e.g., United States v Agueci, 310 F2d 817 [2d Cir 1962], cert denied 372 US 959; United States v Bruno, 105 F2d 921, 922 [2d Cir 1939], revd on other grounds 308 US 287.)

This was, rather, a wheel conspiracy, in which the landlords were the " 'separate spokes meeting in a common center’ ” which was the Lender-Lambert group, without any "rim of the wheel to enclose the spokes.” (Kotteakos v United States, 328 US 750, 755 [1946].) Neither actual knowledge that other landlords were using Lender-Lambert (see, e.g., United States v Varelli, 407 F2d 735, 743 [7th Cir 1969]), nor the similarity of methods and purposes of the various landlord-Lender-Lambert arrangements (United States v Varelli, supra, at p 743; United States v Baxter, 492 F2d 150, 158-159 [9th Cir 1973]) establishes such a linkage. What is required is evidence of a commonalty of interest in addition to knowledge and method.

There were subsidiary groups of landlords as to whom such an interest has been shown. Specifically, and by way of illustration, the defendants Leisner and Marx (indictment No. 8144/84) not only were aware of each other’s use of the Lender-Lambert group to vacate buildings each owned separately, they also jointly purchased, and employed Lender-Lambert to vacate, a series of six buildings from December 1978 to July 1980. These defendants thus acted together to employ the Lender-Lambert group to vacate buildings for their mutual benefit. The existence of their partnership extended the economic benefits derived from each defendant’s use of the scheme to both. This mutuality of economic interest augmented the influence of each defendant in regard to the Lender-Lambert group and enabled them to coordinate their efforts. In other words, it established a rim between the Leisner and Marx spokes sufficient to bring them together with the Lender-Lambert group in a single conspiracy. (See, e.g., United States v Tilton, 610 F2d 302, 307 [5th Cir 1980]; United States v Bernstein, 533 F2d 775, 791 [2d Cir 1976], cert denied 429 US 998; United States v Friedman, 445 F2d 1076, 1080 [9th Cir 1971]; United States v Flick, 516 F2d 489, 494 [7th Cir 1975], cert denied 423 US 931.)

The People’s position is that although there were seven

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. A. S.
179 Misc. 2d 569 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1998)
People v. Cantarella
160 Misc. 2d 8 (New York Supreme Court, 1993)
People v. Kaatsiz
156 Misc. 2d 898 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
People v. Ohrenstein
151 Misc. 2d 512 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
People v. Leisner
535 N.E.2d 647 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Leisner
135 Misc. 2d 1081 (New York Supreme Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 Misc. 2d 191, 496 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1985 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ruiz-nysupct-1985.