Harlem Check Cashing Corp. v. Bell

Decision Date23 July 1946
Citation68 N.E.2d 854,296 N.Y. 15
PartiesHARLEM CHECK CASHING CORPORATION v. BELL, Superintendent of Banks.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Proceeding in the matter of the application of the Harlem Check Cashing Corporation, petitioner, for an order pursuant to article 78, s 1283 et seq., of the Civil Practice Act, against Elliott V. Bell, as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, respondent, to review an order of the respondent revoking the petitioner's license as a cashier of checks. The proceeding was transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court by an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in New York county. From an order of the Appellate Division, 270 App.Div. 806, 60 N.Y.S.2d 278, entered February 15, 1946, unanimously confirming the respondent's determination, the petitioner appeals on constitutional grounds.

Order affirmed. Neilson Olcott and John H. Jackson, both of New York City, for appellant.

Nathaniel L. Goldstein, atty. Gen. (John P. Powers and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We are not persuaded that we are constrained by the decision in Weiss v. United States, 308 U.S. 321, 60 S.Ct. 269, 84 L.Ed. 298, to condemn as illegal the disclosure and divulgence, by use in evidence, of the intercepted messages which were recorded by tapping wires in accordance with the statutes of the State as expressly authorized by the Constitution of the State. N.Y.Const. art. I, s 12; Code Cr.Proc. s 813 a. That case dealt with intercepted telephone messages procured without a court order and in violation of the laws of this State, Penal Law Consol.Laws, c. 40, s 1423, subd. 6, by a police officer acting under instructions of a postoffice inspector, and the sole question decided was ‘whether the (Federal) trial court properly received in evidence intercepted telephone communications.’ Weiss v. United States, 307 U.S. 621, 59 S.Ct. 1043, 83 L.Ed. 1500 Id.,308 U.S. 321, 32660 S.Ct. 269, 84 L.Ed. 298. While there are expressions in the opinion of the court which seem to go so far as to interpret the Federal statute as a substantive law forbidding all disclosure or divulgence, the decision was concerned only with the propriety of the receipt of such intercepted messages in evidence on the trial of a criminal case in a Federal court. The State of New York having provided, by Constitution and ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • People v. Shapiro
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 3 Julio 1980
    ...in violation of the Federal statute in State courts (accord People v. Stemmer, 298 N.Y. 728, 83 N.E.2d 141; Matter of Harlem Check Cashing Corp. v. Bell, 296 N.Y. 15, 68 N.E.2d 854), it did not reach and, in fact, expressly declined to decide whether Congress would have had the power to imp......
  • Com. v. Chaitt
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 14 Marzo 1955
    ...A.2d 706, 709; in People v. Channell, 107 Cal.App.2d 192, 198, 199, 236 P.2d 654, 657, 658; in Harlem Check Cashing Corporation v. Bell, 296 N.Y. 15, 68 N.E.2d 854; and in People v. Stemmer, 298 N.Y. 728, 83 N.E.2d 141. In the Harlem Check Cashing Corporation case [296 N.Y. 15, 68 N.E.2d 85......
  • United States v. Benanti, 266
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 6 Mayo 1957
    ...113 N.E.2d 440; People v. Tieri, 300 N.Y. 569, 89 N.E.2d 526; People v. Stemmer, 298 N.Y. 728, 83 N.E.2d 141; Harlem Check Cashing Corp. v. Bell, 296 N.Y. 15, 68 N.E.2d 854. Thus, in Saperstein the New York Court of Appeals declared that its position had been fully vindicated by Schwartz v.......
  • Schwartz v. State of Texas
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 15 Diciembre 1952
    ...in state courts. Leon v. State, 180 Md. 279, 23 A.2d 706; People v. Stemmer, 298 N.Y. 728, 83 N.E.2d 141; Harlem Check Cashing Corp. v. Bell, 296 N.Y. 15, 68 N.E.2d 854; People v. Channell, 107 Cal.App.2d 192, 236 P.2d 654. While these cases are not controlling here, they are entitled to co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT