## Facts

- Samuel Lubow and Oscar Gissinger, jewelers, owed Max Silverman about $30,000 for diamonds evidenced by unpaid notes.
- When Silverman sought payment, defendants proposed that Silverman obtain additional precious stones on partial credit from suppliers, sell the stones, keep the proceeds, and later declare bankruptcy while attributing losses to gambling; proceeds would be divided among the three.
- Silverman reported the proposal to authorities and later recorded a conversation with defendants consistent with the earlier discussion.
- At trial, Silverman testified to defendants’ plan and their effort to induce him to carry it out, and the recording corroborated his account.
- Defendants were convicted in New York City Criminal Court of criminal solicitation in the second degree (solicitation to commit a felony), and the Appellate Term affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ communications to Silverman, urging conduct amounting to grand larceny, were sufficient to establish criminal solicitation in the second degree without proof of an overt act, consummation, or the solicited party’s participation.
2. Whether the solicitation statute requires corroboration beyond the testimony of the person solicited or proof that the solicited party intended to comply.
3. Whether charging and procedural objections (including the offense grade charged and aspects of the trial procedure) required reversal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
- The evidence supported that defendants, with intent that Silverman commit a felony, solicited or attempted to cause him to engage in that conduct.
- The offense was complete upon the prohibited communication coupled with the requisite intent; no further steps toward the underlying felony were required.
- Corroboration of the solicitation was not a statutory requirement, although the recording provided corroboration on these facts.
- Defendants’ charging and procedural challenges were rejected.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal solicitation under New York Penal Law article 100 is an anticipatory offense that may rest solely on a communication made with intent that another engage in conduct constituting a crime.
- Solicitation does not require an overt act in furtherance of the solicited offense, a completed or attempted underlying offense, or agreement by the person solicited.
- The statute does not require corroboration of the solicitation; the communication itself, if proved and accompanied by the required intent, is sufficient.
- The statute’s “otherwise attempts to cause” language can reach unsuccessful attempts at communication initiated with the required intent.

## Conclusion

The court upheld solicitation convictions based on defendants’ communicated plan to induce a felony, holding that the crime is completed by the intentional request or attempt to cause another to commit the offense, without any need for further action, assent, or corroboration.


People v. Lubow, 29 N.Y.2d 58 (N.Y. 1971)