New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 200.05 (2026)

Bribery; defense

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 200.05 Bribery; defense.
  In any prosecution for bribery, 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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1987–2010 · leading case: City of New York v. Joseph L. Balkan, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 536 (E.D.N.Y 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of New York v. Joseph L. Balkan, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 536 (E.D.N.Y 1987). · cites it 3× “Bribery Pace, Harris, Mirabile, Mario Durso, Division and Norton all contend that they did not commit the racketeering act of bribery because, under N.Y. Penal Law § 200.05 (McKinney 1975) [i]n any prosecution for bribery, it is a defense that the defendant conferred or agreed…”

United States v. Katherine Bordallo Aguon, 851 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1988). “See N.Y.Penal Law § 200.05 (McKinney 1975) and Hechtman, A.”

United States v. Guerrerio, 670 F. Supp. 1215 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). “The government, however, maintains that the extortion must be viewed in the context of the larger scheme to defraud Co-op City.”

People v. Manfredi, 166 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “The defendant does not suggest that Novick was his accomplice in the extor *462 tion scheme or conspiracy. To be considered as a bribery accomplice, Novick would have had to pay the sums demanded freely and voluntarily, without fear, duress, or coercion (cf.”

People v. Panico, 130 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). “By failing to make a motion to the court of first instance to withdraw his plea, the defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his plea allocution was inadequate because the court did not question him as to whether he was aware that he had a possible…”

People v. Koopalethes, 166 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “However, Mateus could not have been both a willing bribe giver and an unwilling victim of *459 extortion in the same transaction (Penal Law § 200.05; People v Court, 43 NY2d 817 ).”

People v. Chou, 292 A.D.2d 199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). “Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the court gave consideration to his extortion/coercion defense (Penal Law § 200.05), but properly rejected it, as well as his entrapment defense (Penal Law § 40.”

People v. Alexander, 72 A.D.3d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “We note that defendant concedes that the evidence did not support the extortion/coercion defense to bribery (Penal Law § 200.05). In any event, regardless of whether counsel should have asked for instructions on these additional defenses, the lack of those instructions could not…”

People v. Erskine, 128 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). “In the instant matter, the defendant asserted both the defense of coercion (see, Penal Law § 200.05) and the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, Penal Law § 40.”

People v. Aldea, 275 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). “The jury was warranted in finding that the People disproved beyond a reasonable doubt defendant’s defense that his payments and offers of payments to a police officer made in relation to a family-run drug operation were extorted by the officer (Penal Law § 200.05). The evidence…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.