People v. Tantleff

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Tantleff

356 N.E.2d 477, 40 N.Y.2d 862, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3026

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 356 N.E.2d 477 (People v. Tantleff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Tantleff, 356 N.E.2d 477, 40 N.Y.2d 862, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3026 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We reject defendant’s contention, pressed with respect to [863]*863each of the four counts on which he was convicted, that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. We have considered defendant’s other assertions of error and find them to be without merit. Specifically, we hold that defendant was not entitled to a separate, explicit charge that among the essential elements of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree, which the prosecution was required to establish to obtain a conviction, was an intent on defendant’s part to obstruct the Grand Jury investigation (Penal Law, § 215.51). We also note that in consequence of his failure to raise any claim of illegal wiretapping before the Grand Jury, defendant was precluded from raising it thereafter. (Cf. People v Gentile, 39 NY2d 779; People v Breindel, 35 NY2d 928.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We reject defendant’s contention, pressed with respect to [863]*863each of the four counts on which he was convicted, that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. We have considered defendant’s other assertions of error and find them to be without merit. Specifically, we hold that defendant was not entitled to a separate, explicit charge that among the essential elements of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree, which the prosecution was required to establish to obtain a conviction, was an intent on defendant’s part to obstruct the Grand Jury investigation (Penal Law, § 215.51). We also note that in consequence of his failure to raise any claim of illegal wiretapping before the Grand Jury, defendant was precluded from raising it thereafter. (Cf. People v Gentile, 39 NY2d 779; People v Breindel, 35 NY2d 928.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 N.E.2d 477, 40 N.Y.2d 862, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tantleff-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack