## Facts

- The Kerin companies were nonunion wholesale stationery and office-supply businesses in Manhattan owned and controlled by the Kerin family.
- From late 1955 into early 1956, multiple unions undertook “organizational activities” directed at the Kerin companies, including threats to picket and to stop shipments; picketing later appeared at the shipping entrance.
- John J. McNamara, a Teamsters official, approached the Kerins and represented that he could make the labor trouble and picket lines stop if the companies: (a) joined his union, (b) paid $3,500 to Equitable Research Associates, Inc. for alleged organizing “expenses,” and (c) retained Equitable at $100 per month as a labor consultant.
- The Kerins understood continued picketing and shipment disruption could severely damage the business and potentially put it out of business.
- The Kerins ultimately paid a total of $4,700 before reporting the matter to authorities.
- John Dioguardi was the sole officer of Equitable; most checks were payable to, endorsed by, and recorded as salary to Dioguardi, supporting an inference he was the principal beneficiary.
- The prosecution alleged the “consulting” arrangement was a device to extract money by exploiting fear of labor disruption rather than a bona fide consulting or union-related service.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to the prosecution, there was a factual question for the jury on extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion.
2. Whether extortion may be established through wrongful use of economic fear arising from threatened or orchestrated labor disruption, even without an explicit threat of unlawful physical force.
3. Whether an intermediate appellate court may dismiss an indictment and discharge defendants when the record permits a reasonable jury finding of guilt.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order that had dismissed the indictment and discharged the defendants.
- The court held the evidence permitted a jury to find extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion based on the connection between labor trouble, the offer to stop it, and the demanded payments.
- The court concluded the Appellate Division improperly substituted its view of the facts for the jury’s by dismissing despite permissible inferences of guilt.

## Legal Principles

- Extortion may be proved by obtaining property through the wrongful use of fear, including fear of economic harm, not limited to threats of physical violence.
- Fear of business loss from continued or threatened labor disruption can satisfy the “fear” element when defendants exploit that fear to obtain payments not legitimately owed.
- Where the trial record supports any reasonable view under which a jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the matter is for the jury; an appellate court should not dismiss an indictment on factual sufficiency grounds in such circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence tying labor disruption to demands for “consulting” payments created a jury question on extortion and conspiracy based on wrongful economic coercion, and that the intermediate appellate court erred by dismissing the indictment and overturning the jury’s verdicts on the facts.


People v. Dioguardi, 203 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. 1960)