United States v. McDonough

N.D. New York

United States v. McDonough

831 F. Supp. 73, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13414, 1993 WL 383552

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York

DecidedSeptember 20, 1993

DocketNo. 93-CR-162

StatusPublished

This text of 831 F. Supp. 73 (United States v. McDonough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. McDonough, 831 F. Supp. 73, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13414, 1993 WL 383552 (N.D.N.Y. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

McAVOY, Chief Judge.

On September 1,1993, this court issued an Order in the above captioned action denying in part and reserving in part on defendants’ omnibus motion. The portion of the motion on which the court reserved decision concerned the application of New York Election Law § 17-158 to count 12 of the indictment. On this issue, the court ordered the parties to provide further briefing addressing the question of whether the designation of an insurance agency as a municipality’s “Broker of Record” constitutes an “appointment for any public office” within the meaning of N.Y.Eleet.L. § 17-158(3). The government [74]*74has submitted a timely brief arguing that the designation of an insurance agency as a municipality’s Broker of Record constitutes appointment to a “public office” or a “public place” within the meaning of N.Y.Elec.L. § IT — ISSCS).¹ The defendants have not submitted briefing on the issue and have indicated to the court that they would not be submitting same.

Upon the arguments presented in the government’s brief, the court finds that appointment of an insurance agency to the position of a municipality’s Broker of Record could constitute “nomination or appointment for a public office or place” within the meaning of New York Election Law § 17-158(3). That being the situation, the court now denies defendants’ motion to strike ¶ F.5.D of count 12 on the grounds that it fails to allege the necessary elements of New York Election Law § 17-158.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ORDER

McAVOY, Chief Judge.

On September 1,1993, this court issued an Order in the above captioned action denying in part and reserving in part on defendants’ omnibus motion. The portion of the motion on which the court reserved decision concerned the application of New York Election Law § 17-158 to count 12 of the indictment. On this issue, the court ordered the parties to provide further briefing addressing the question of whether the designation of an insurance agency as a municipality’s “Broker of Record” constitutes an “appointment for any public office” within the meaning of N.Y.Eleet.L. § 17-158(3). The government [74]*74has submitted a timely brief arguing that the designation of an insurance agency as a municipality’s Broker of Record constitutes appointment to a “public office” or a “public place” within the meaning of N.Y.Elec.L. § IT — ISSCS).¹ The defendants have not submitted briefing on the issue and have indicated to the court that they would not be submitting same.

Upon the arguments presented in the government’s brief, the court finds that appointment of an insurance agency to the position of a municipality’s Broker of Record could constitute “nomination or appointment for a public office or place” within the meaning of New York Election Law § 17-158(3). That being the situation, the court now denies defendants’ motion to strike ¶ F.5.D of count 12 on the grounds that it fails to allege the necessary elements of New York Election Law § 17-158.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 F. Supp. 73, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13414, 1993 WL 383552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mcdonough-nynd-1993.