296 N.Y. 15, Harlem Check Cashing Corporation v. Bell

Citation:296 N.Y. 15
Party Name:Harlem Check Cashing Corporation v. Bell
Case Date:July 23, 1946
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 15

296 N.Y. 15

In the Matter of HARLEM CHECK CASHING CORPORATION, Appellant,

v.

ELLIOTT V. BELL, as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeal

July 23, 1946

Argued June 6, 1946.

Page 16

COUNSEL

Neilson Olcott and John H. Jackson for appellant. I. Under section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, it was a crime to intercept and divulge telephone messages. This statute creates a rule of evidence binding on all courts, State and Federal, and applies to intrastate as well as interstate messages. Article I, section 12, of the Constitution of the State of New York and section 813-a of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure purporting to legalize such interception and disclosure are violative of the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution (art. I, § 8, cl. 3). (Weiss v. United States, 308 U.S. 321; Goldstein v. U. S., 316 U.S. 114; Rowan v. State, 175 Md. 547; People v. Kelley, 122 P. 2d 655; People v. Kelley, 137 P. 2d 1; Erie R. R. Co. v. New York, 233 U.S. 671; People v. Hudson River Connecting R. R. Corp., 228 N.Y. 203; Sablowsky v. United States, 101 F.2d 183.) II. The order should be reversed because the Superintendent avowedly 'considered' the illegal evidence, despite the fact that he asserted, hypothetically, that he would have reached the same result without it. (Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468.) III. The admission of the evidence objected to resulted in denying appellant a fair hearing. (People ex rel. Shiels v. Greene, 179 N.Y. 195; People ex rel. Moynihan v. Greene, 179 N.Y. 253; Matter of N.Y. City Council v. Goldwater, 284 N.Y. 296.)

Page 17

Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (John P. Powers and Samuel A. Hirschowitz of counsel), for respondent. The evidence obtained by wire tapping was properly received and did not deprive the witness of any constitutional rights. (United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1; Townsend v. Yeomans, 301 U.S. 441; Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495; Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 318 U.S. 1; Sablowsky v. United States, 101 F.2d 183; Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78; Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278; Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167; Milburne v. United States, 77 F.2d 310; People v. Richter's Jewelers, Inc., 291 N.Y. 161; People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13; Hubin v. State, 180 Md. 279; Rowan v. State, 175 Md. 547; Young v. Young, ...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP