New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 200.15 (2026)

Bribe receiving; no defense

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§ 200.15 Bribe receiving; no defense.
  1. The crimes of (a) bribe receiving, and (b) larceny committed by
means of extortion, attempt to commit the same, coercion and attempt to
commit coercion, are not mutually exclusive, and it is no defense to a
prosecution for bribe receiving that, by reason of the same conduct, the
defendant also committed one of such other specified crimes.
  2. It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to the provisions of
this article that the public servant did not have power or authority to
perform the act or omission for which the alleged bribe, gratuity or
reward was given.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1985–2016 · leading case: United States v. Halloran, 821 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Halloran, 821 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2016). “N.Y. Penal Law § 200.15 (2) (“It is no defense to- a prosecution pursuant to the provisions of this article that the public servant did not have power or authority to perform the act or omission for which the alleged bribe .”

United States v. Stanley Friedman, Michael Lazar, Lester Shafran, & Marvin Kaplan, Defendants, 854 F.2d 535 (2d Cir. 1988). “; N.Y. Penal Law § 200.15 supplementary practice commentary (McKinney Supp.”

People v. Podolsky, 130 Misc. 2d 987 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985). “10; see, Hechtman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 200.15, pp 418-420; People v Kacer, 113 Misc 2d 338, 340-341 [Sup Ct, NY County 1982].”

People v. 610 Video Store, Inc., 180 Misc. 2d 458 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1999). “10 (1) which states the offense of arson in the third degree and subdivision (2) which provides an affirmative defense to arson in the third degree; Penal Law § 200.15 (1) states the crime of bribe receiving, and subdivision (2) states the absence of a defense to bribe receiving.”

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.