Duchein v. Lindsay

• Decision Date: 28 June 1973
• Citation: 345 N.Y.S.2d 53,42 A.D.2d 100
• Parties: Delbart DUCHEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John V. LINDSAY, as Mayor of City of New York, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 53

345 N.Y.S.2d 53

42 A.D.2d 100

Delbart DUCHEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John V. LINDSAY, as Mayor of City of New York, et al Defendants-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 28, 1973.

John E. Kirklin, New York City, of counsel (Gerald Mann, New York City, with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Nina G. Goldstein, New York City, of counsel (Stanley Buchsbaum, New York City, with her on the brief; Norman Redlich, Corp. Counsel, New York City), for defendants-respondents.

Before MARKEWICH, J.P., and MURPHY, STEUER, CAPOZZOLI and MACKEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant is an artist who creates and peddles his works upon the streets of this city. He seeks in this proceeding to have declared unconstitutional Rules and Regulations 13 through 16 of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, relating to licensed peddlers, as well as an injunction against their enforcement. Special Term granted defendant-respondent City's motion for summary judgment, declaring the Regulations constitutionally valid, and denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The appeal is from the judgment entered on that decision and order. The main trust of plaintiff's attack is that the Regulations are violative of due process, are discriminatory and deny equal protection of the laws, are vague, and are unduly broad in relation to legitimate governmental purpose. A second attack, based on First Amendment claims, is to the effect that the Regulations restrict plaintiff's freedom of expression as an artist; the short answer is that there is no such restriction, the Regulations having only to do with the commercial aspects of plaintiff's activities as he peddles the tangible manifestations of his otherwise untrammeled freedom of expression. The attack is in no wise based on the visitation of sanctions on plaintiff, for he has chosen not to answer the almost countless numbers of summonses served on him. Thus, consideration of this appeal must be restricted to the Regulations as they read on their face.

The subject regulations follow: (To facilitate consideration herein, subdivision letters, that do not appear in the original, are added to Regulations 13 and 15 for purposes of reference.)

'13. No licensee shall operate (a) within 500 feet of any public market or enclosed market under the jurisdiction of the Department of Consumer Affairs, nor (b) within 250 feet of any park or parkway, beach, boardwalk, playground, swimming pool, recreation center or other property or facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks; nor (c) within 100 feet of any store selling the same commodity; nor (d) within 200 feet of any public or private school while same is in session or a church during services.

'14. No licensee shall permit his cart, wagon, automobile or other receptacle to stand on any street within 25 feet of any intersection or to remain on the sidewalk at any time.

'15. (a) No licensee or his vehicle shall remain upon or otherwise encumber the street in front of or within fifty (50) feet of any premises if the owner, lessee or tenant thereof objects thereto; nor (b) shall a licensee or his vehicle remain within two hundred fifty (250) feet of any premises selling the same commodity if the owner or operator thereof objects thereto.

'16. No licensee shall operate upon any of the restricted streets enumerated in the schedule issued to the applicant on the granting of a license. (The list of restricted streets is annexed to the complaint.)'

At the outset, it is noted that the purpose of the Regulations is consonant with their name, and that therefore they are not in apparent conflict with the holding in Good Humor Corp. v. City of New York, 290 N.Y. 312, 49 N.E.2d 153. The question, then, is whether they regulate within recognized constitutional principles. With certain noted exceptions, all four of the Regulations appear to relate rationally to evils which the state has authority as well as responsibility to curb and control. See Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 83 S.Ct. 1028, 10 L.Ed.2d 93. It is virtually axiomatic that problems of traffic congestion, public disorder, littering, obstruction of free passage, and related problems of public safety and convenience are legitimate concerns of government. This being so, the expertise of the authorities having responsibility in these areas should be accorded great weight. See Lincoln Bldg Asso. v. Barr, 1 N.Y.2d 413, 153 N.Y.S.2d 633, 135 N.E.2d 801. There are, however, as has been said, certain exceptions to total acceptance of the...