Very interesting. A year later, Leo Martin shows up in the New York Times again, but this time with the headline: "Four Food Dealers Held as Bribers."
"Operators of a cafeteria and three bakeries were arrested yesterday on charges of offering bribes to health inspectors to avoid the notoriety of appearing on the "dirty restaurant list" that warns the public of health violations, according to the complaint." (New York Times, November 17, 1971)
Apparently, at four different restaurants, the owners offered between $10 and $50 to inspectors in order to avoid flunking their food inspections. The deputy commissioner at the time, David Dorsen, was quoted as saying that this is the first time charges have been pressed against anyone attempting to offer bribes, and the law making restaurants who don't pass inspection public went into effect in July of 1971. It sounds like this was a case of setting the standard for other restaurants - i.e. take this seriously, don't try and buy your way out of these new regulations.
What's interesting, though is that it goes on to mention that all the restaurants had previously come up with a clean inspection:
"Previously, the four businesses cited, including Dubrow's, the popular cafeteria in the garment district, had been given clean bills of health, with no ciolations (sic) cited by H.S.A inspectors, who are known as "sanitarians," Mr. Dorsen said....The four men arrested and charged with bribery and giving unlawful gratuities were identified as Leib Braunfeld, 52, of Gertel Bakery, 53 Hester Street, charged with a $10 bribe offered on November 3; Herb Geller, 26, of Original Royal Bakery, 237 West 72nd Street, charged with offering a $20 bribe on November 13; Leo Martin, 56, of Dubrow's Cafeteria, 515 Seventh Ave, charged with offering a $50 bribe on November 14; and Adolph Mersberg, of Mersberg Bakery, 64-00 Metropolitan Avenue, Queens, with the complaint listing a $10 bribe offered on October 25. " (Ibid.)
It was probably a pretty minor incident, in the grand scheme of things, but it does raise some questions - why would Dubrow's not pass that year, when previously it had? Is it just a coincidence that it comes a year after Leo Martin's big push for increased productivity, or did he sacrifice some standards to get there?
2 comments:
They passed previously as the bribes were successful. Look at the amount of the zu row's bribe compared to the others. They had obvious experience in such an endeavor.
My wife's grandfather was a NYC detective. He always seemed to have more cash on hand than his salary would support. Of course, I dared not risk losing her affection by pointing out this cogent observation.
They passed previously as the bribes were successful. Look at the amount of the zu row's bribe compared to the others. They had obvious experience in such an endeavor.
My wife's grandfather was a NYC detective. He always seemed to have more cash on hand than his salary would support. Of course, I dared not risk losing her affection by pointing out this cogent observation.
Post a Comment