 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ECONOMIC HARM INSURANCE BRIBE AMOUNT COMMERCIAL BRIBERY KICKBACK COMMERCIAL UNION AETNA SETTLEMENT INSURANCE COMPANY EVIDENCE EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE PENAL LAW DEFENDANT CORRUPT ARRANGEMENT MAIL FRAUD REQUISITE ECONOMIC HARM LEGISLATURE MAIL FRAUD CONVICTION MAIL FRAUD STATUTE UNITED STATES WILLINGNESS PRIMA FACIE AMOUNT EXCEEDING MISDEMEANORS FELONY CRIMES APPELLANT RESPONDENT |
1 No. 19
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Cyrus Wolf,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 54
May 7, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Mark M. Baker, for appellant.
Michael S. Morgan, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
LEVINE, J.:
In 1983 the Legislature created the felony crimes of first degree
commercial bribing and commercial bribe receiving by adding an
additional element to the definitions of the corresponding prior
commercial bribery Class A misdemeanors: that "the bribe causes
economic harm to the employer or the principal in an amount exceeding
two hundred fifty dollars" (L 1983, ch 577, Penal Law §§ 180.03,
180.08). The primary issue on this appeal is the legal sufficiency of
the evidence to establish that Aetna Life and Casualty Company, and
Commercial Union Insurance Company, incurred the requisite economic
harm as a result of defendant's bribery of their employees, as alleged
in the two felony commercial bribing counts of the indictment.
Resolving that issue requires us to determine the nature of the proof
required to demonstrate economic harm under the circumstances of this
case.
The underlying facts concerning defendant's conduct are not in
dispute. Defendant, an attorney, paid kickbacks to insurance company
adjusters through intermediaries out of his contingent fees, for
expediting the settlement of his clients' personal injury claims. The
courts below held that the payment of a kickback alone was sufficient
to establish prima facie both the fact and the amount of the economic
harm the insurance carrier/employer incurred in each of these cases.
The Appellate Division based that conclusion on a simple syllogism and
arithmetic calculation:
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
