New York official misconduct statute

Jones, a New York building inspector who accepts bribes from developers is charged with violating the New York official misconduct statute. His trial in state court results in an acquittal. Smith, another building inspector who also accepts bribes, is later charged with official misconduct under the same statute, but the trial court dismisses the case because the prosecution is barred by the New York statute of limitations. A year later, a federal grand jury indicts Jones and Smith for violating Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), citing only violations of the New York official misconduct statute as predicate crimes. Does the RICO indictment properly allege offenses that are chargeable and punishable under New York law? Compare: United States v. Davis, 576 F.2d 1065 (3d Cir. 1978), and United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083 (3d Cir. 1977), and Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 634 F. Supp. 1284 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), with United States v. Louie, 625 F.Supp.1327 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Please cite applicable federal regulations, statutes or cases in support of your analysis.