People v. Spatarella, 34 N.Y.2d 157 (1974)

The crime of larceny by extortion can be established when a person compels another, through fear of physical injury, to relinquish a business advantage or customer relationship, even if that relationship is not a tangible asset.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for grand larceny by extortion, holding that the forced relinquishment of a business customer under threat of physical harm constitutes the delivery of “property” within the meaning of the extortion statute. The defendant, Spatarella, threatened a competitor, Ugenti, demanding that he cease servicing a particular restaurant. The Court reasoned that the business relationship with the restaurant was a valuable intangible right, the deprivation of which, through threats, satisfied the elements of extortion. The court also addressed the admissibility of certain tapes, finding no basis for suppression.

Facts

Spatarella managed All American Refuse Removal Corporation, and Ugenti was the president of North Shore Sanitation. Ugenti’s company began servicing a restaurant, Mei-Ting, previously serviced by Spatarella’s company. In January 1970, Spatarella confronted Ugenti and threatened him with physical harm if he did not stop servicing Mei-Ting by the following month. Ugenti, believing the threat, ceased servicing the restaurant. All American then resumed servicing Mei-Ting.

Procedural History

Spatarella was convicted of criminal mischief, criminal possession of stolen property, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, grand larceny by extortion, and petit larceny. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Spatarella appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, challenging primarily his conviction for grand larceny by extortion and the admissibility of certain tape recordings.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the successful demand, made by Spatarella on Ugenti, to relinquish a business customer (Mei-Ting restaurant) through fear of physical injury constitutes the delivery of “property” under New York’s larceny by extortion statute.

2. Whether the trial court properly admitted certain tape recordings into evidence, despite the District Attorney’s alleged failure to provide adequate pretrial notice and claims of inaudibility or lack of exculpatory material.

Holding

1. Yes, because the term “property” under the extortion statute is construed broadly to include intangible rights such as advantageous business relationships. The deprivation of such a relationship through threats constitutes extortion.

2. Yes, because the defendant did not allege involuntariness regarding the tapes, and therefore, there was no legal basis for a suppression hearing. Furthermore, the claims of surprise and inaudibility should have been raised in a discovery motion.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on prior cases like People v. Barondess and People ex rel. Short v. Warden of City Prison, which interpreted “property” broadly in the context of extortion statutes to include intangible rights. The Court stated, “[B]usiness is property, as much so as the articles themselves which are included in its transactions.” The court reasoned that depriving someone of a business relationship through threats is as destructive as damaging physical property. The court found that Spatarella’s demand for the business itself was more egregious than simply demanding money. The Court emphasized the logic of the statute’s application to the facts, stating that “Ugenti possessed an advantageous business relationship…which because of Spatarella’s forceful and illegal behavior, deprived Ugenti of that business arrangement, the advantage of which was obtained by and accrued to the defendant directly in consequence of his extortive activity.” Regarding the tapes, the court noted that the defendant’s motion to suppress did not allege involuntariness, a necessary predicate for triggering a suppression hearing under the Criminal Procedure Law. The court rejected arguments of surprise and inaudibility, noting those issues should have been raised in pre-trial discovery.