People v. Sam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sam

49 A.D.2d 732, 372 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10676

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 25, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 732 (People v. Sam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Sam, 49 A.D.2d 732, 372 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to dismiss the indictment for want of jurisdiction granted, on the law. This matter is before the court pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 149 of the Judiciary Law. (See People v King, 48 AD2d 457.) The defendants are members of the New York City Transit Authority Police Department. They are also officers of the Gonen Society, an organization of transit officers of the Jewish faith. They were charged in the indictment by the Extraordinary Special Grand Jury for the County of New York with Conspiracy (third degree), Grand Larceny (second degree) and Grand Larceny (third degree) to the effect that they stole money from the society by overpaying bills submitted by the society’s travel agent in connection with Las Vegas tours. The motion is to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Executive Order No. 55 (9 NYCRR 1.58) does not give the Special Prosecutor jurisdiction over the transgressions alleged. The ambit of Executive Order No. 58 is discussed in Matter of Moritt v Nadjari (46 AD2d 784). Three elements are necessary for jurisdiction. In this situation, each of the defendants is a "public servant” and the alleged acts are "corrupt”. However, they do not relate to "the enforcement of law or administration of [733]*733criminal justice”. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

Motion to dismiss the indictment for want of jurisdiction granted, on the law. This matter is before the court pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 149 of the Judiciary Law. (See People v King, 48 AD2d 457.) The defendants are members of the New York City Transit Authority Police Department. They are also officers of the Gonen Society, an organization of transit officers of the Jewish faith. They were charged in the indictment by the Extraordinary Special Grand Jury for the County of New York with Conspiracy (third degree), Grand Larceny (second degree) and Grand Larceny (third degree) to the effect that they stole money from the society by overpaying bills submitted by the society’s travel agent in connection with Las Vegas tours. The motion is to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Executive Order No. 55 (9 NYCRR 1.58) does not give the Special Prosecutor jurisdiction over the transgressions alleged. The ambit of Executive Order No. 58 is discussed in Matter of Moritt v Nadjari (46 AD2d 784). Three elements are necessary for jurisdiction. In this situation, each of the defendants is a "public servant” and the alleged acts are "corrupt”. However, they do not relate to "the enforcement of law or administration of [733]*733criminal justice”. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 732, 372 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sam-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack