Opinion ID: 757729
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Allen Defendants' Coercion/Extortion Defenses

Text: 40 The Allen Defendants also contend that they adduced facts sufficient to support valid defenses of coercion and extortion to the bribery offenses that served as their RICO predicate acts. They point to the statements in John Allen's affidavit (i) that he observed that all the other carters dumping in the Oyster Bay dump were allowed to slip (or, as he terms it, tip) the scale, (ii) that we were the only carter dumping at the Oyster Bay dump who was actually paying the amount required, and (iii) that [i]n order to survive, we had to pay off the scalehouse employees to allow us to pay lower prices. 41 The Allen Defendants rely on several New York statutes to establish the legal basis for their defense to the alleged acts of bribery. Under New York law, in a bribery prosecution, 42 it is a defense that the defendant conferred or agreed to confer the benefit involved upon the public servant involved as a result of conduct of the latter constituting larceny committed by means of extortion, or an attempt to commit the same, or coercion, or an attempt to commit coercion. 43 N.Y. Penal L. § 200.05. Larceny by extortion, in turn is defined, in relevant part, as follows: 44 A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor will: 45 ... 46 (viii) Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely. 47 Id. § 155.05(2)(e). And second-degree coercion is similarly defined as follows: 48 A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:... 49 8. Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such a manner as to affect some person adversely. 50 Id. § 135.60. 51 These statutes do not support the alleged defenses. The statutes require that the government official actually compel or induce the citizen's conduct through instilling in him a fear of certain consequences. All those verbs require some active demand or threat on the part of the government official. However, in this case, John Allen claims to have discovered the corrupt scheme by observing it in action, and then demanding that he be allowed to participate. The scalehouse workers' compliance with this demand is not the sort of active, overbearing conduct that would allow the Allen Defendants to claim that they were either extorted or coerced. 52 Nor can the Allen Defendants enlist the statutes by relying on the provision that covers refusing to perform an official duty, Id. §§ 155.05(2)(e), 135.60. What the scalehouse employees refused to do without a payment was falsely report the cargo weight of a truck, a task that is obviously not an official duty. 53 Summary judgment rejecting the coercion and extortion defenses was properly granted.