Abrams v. Esposito
| Decision Date | 15 April 1980 |
| Citation | 426 N.Y.S.2d 770,75 A.D.2d 528 |
| Parties | Robert ABRAMS, Attorney General of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Meade H. ESPOSITO, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
E.S. Greenspan, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
J. La Rossa, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and SILVERMAN, LYNCH and CARRO, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 5, 1979, dismissing the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) 1, a defense based on documentary evidence, in this action arising under Pari-Mutuel Revenue Law (Title 21, Chapter 2, Unconsolidated Laws) as to political party officers having any dealings with horse race tracks, and a subsequent judgment entered on said order on October 9, 1979, unanimously reversed, on the facts and the law, and the motion to dismiss the amended complaint denied, without costs or disbursements.
Section 8052, Unconsolidated Laws forbids an interest in a pari-mutuel licensee to a political party officer who is defined, in part, as a "county leader, chairman, vice-chairman, counsel, secretary or treasurer of a county committee". As authorized by the section, the Attorney General has commenced this action to remove the defendant from party office, alleging that he has an interest in a pari-mutuel licensee that is forbidden to him because he is the county leader of the Kings County Democratic party. Special Term dismissed the amended complaint. It found that the document offered in defense, the Rules of the Democratic Party of Kings County, makes no provision for a county leader, and that the defendant is Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Kings County Democratic Committee. It held that, under the strict construction necessary because the statute is one of forfeiture, the defendant holds no position within the statute's definition of a party officer.
Section 8052 was intended to eliminate "the opportunity of political influence for private gain" (Message of the Governor, Legislative Document (1954) No. 79) and to "effect a complete divorcement between all public officials and all proprietors of race tracks" (Maguire v. Monaghan,206 Misc. 550, 556, 134 N.Y.S.2d 320; see also Matter of Murtha v. Monaghan, 1 A.D.2d 178, 188, 148 N.Y.S.2d 615). Under the construction urged by the defendant, party officers could readily defeat the intention of the legislature by the simple device of giving to their positions titles different from those set forth in the statutory definition. The rules of strict construction do not command such inflexibility; they do not constrain a court to defeat the evident intention of the lawmaker (People ex rel. S. J. Groves & Sons v. Hamilton, 227 App.Div. 356, 358, 238 N.Y.S. 81, affd. 254 N.Y. 540, 173 N.E. 856). Rather, statutes of forfeiture...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burrows v. Board of Assessors for Town of Chatham
...that the rules of statutory construction "do not constrain a court to defeat the evident intention of the lawmaker" (Abrams v. Esposito, 75 A.D.2d 528, 529, 426 N.Y.S.2d 770, affd. 54 N.Y.2d 886, 444 N.Y.S.2d 918, 429 N.E.2d 425, app. dsmd. 455 U.S. 996, 102 S.Ct. 1626, 71 L.Ed.2d 858), and......
-
Besser v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
...command such inflexibility; they do not constrain a court to defeat the evident intention of the lawmaker * * *." (Abrams v. Esposito, 75 A.D.2d 528, 529, 426 N.Y.S.2d 770, aff'd, 54 N.Y.2d 886, 444 N.Y.S.2d 918, 429 N.E.2d In determining a statute's meaning, the court's function is not to ......
-
Holtzman v. Samuel
...or criminal, the legislative intent governs and only the 'clearest proof' can negate that legislative intent (see, Abrams v. Esposito, 75 A.D.2d 528, 529, 426 N.Y.S.2d 770, affd. 54 N.Y.2d 886, 444 N.Y.S.2d 918, 429 N.E.2d 425 for the reasons stated in 75 A.D.2d 528, 426 N.Y.S.2d 770; Unite......
-
Abrams v. Esposito
...Appeals of New York. Oct. 15, 1981. Order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (75 A.D.2d 528, 426 N.Y.S.2d 770). Question certified answered in the All concur. MEYER, J., taking no part. ...