People on Complaint of Mayola v. Zalon

CourtNew York Magistrate Court
Writing for the CourtRICHMAN
Citation208 Misc. 855,145 N.Y.S.2d 269
Decision Date17 October 1955
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York on complaint of Officer MAYOLA, v. Jerome ZALON, Defendant. City Magistrates' Court of New York City, Borough of Manhattan, Upper Manhattan Summons Court

Page 269

145 N.Y.S.2d 269
208 Misc. 855
The PEOPLE of the State of New York on complaint of Officer MAYOLA,
v.
Jerome ZALON, Defendant.
City Magistrates' Court of New York City, Borough of
Manhattan, Upper Manhattan Summons Court.
Oct. 17, 1955.

Page 270

Joseph T. McDonough, New York City, for the People.

Helen M. Clark, New York City, for defendant.

RICHMAN, Judge.

In this case the defendant is charged with violating Section 34 of the Park Department Rules and Regulations, which provides:

'No person shall under any circumstances loiter or remain in any park between twelve o'clock midnight and one-half hour before sunrise without general or special permission.'

It is admitted that on August 21, 1955, at about 1:45 a. m., the defendant was seated on a bench inside of Washington Square Park and that he had been in the park for a period of approximately ten minutes. It is the contention of the defendant's attorney (1) that this park regulation is illegal because it goes beyond the power granted the Commissioner of Parks by the city charter, and (2) that the said regulation is unconstitutional.

I find (1) that Section 34 of the Park Department Rules and Regulations prohibiting persons from loitering or remaining in a park after twelve o'clock midnight is not a violation of the power granted to the Park Commissioner under Section 534, subd. a of the New York City charter. Section 534, subd. a, reads:

'The commissioner shall have power to establish and enforce rules and regulations for the government [208 Misc. 856] and protection of public parks and of all property under the charge or control of the commissioner, which rules and regulations so far as practicable shall be uniform in all boroughs and shall have the force and effect of law.'

I find (2) that the said regulation is not unconstitutional and that it is a reasonable measure of local control which affects civil liberties only in

Page 271

an allowable and minor degree. Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049.

I find the defendant guilty as charged. However, taking into consideration that there is no proof that signs were posted warning the defendant, I suspend sentence.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • People v. Trantham, Cr. 21191
    • United States
    • United States Superior Court (California)
    • July 30, 1984
    ...as the one sub judice is a matter of first impression in California. (See, generally, 59 A.L.R.3d 321, § 9.) In People v. Zalon (1955) 208 Misc. 855, 145 N.Y.S.2d 269 the court upheld a New York City Park Department rule prohibiting anyone from loitering or remaining in any park after midni......
  • Thistlewood v. Trial Magistrate for Ocean City, Worcester County, No. 45
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • November 17, 1964
    ...a 'remaining' type curfew ordinance is constitutional even when the statute applies to adults. People on Complaint of Mayola v. Zalon, 208 Misc. 855, 145 N.Y.S.2d 269 (prohibition against 'loitering or remaining' in parks after midnight held constitutional); City of Portland v. Goodwin, 187......
2 cases
  • People v. Trantham, Cr. 21191
    • United States
    • United States Superior Court (California)
    • July 30, 1984
    ...as the one sub judice is a matter of first impression in California. (See, generally, 59 A.L.R.3d 321, § 9.) In People v. Zalon (1955) 208 Misc. 855, 145 N.Y.S.2d 269 the court upheld a New York City Park Department rule prohibiting anyone from loitering or remaining in any park after midni......
  • Thistlewood v. Trial Magistrate for Ocean City, Worcester County, No. 45
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • November 17, 1964
    ...a 'remaining' type curfew ordinance is constitutional even when the statute applies to adults. People on Complaint of Mayola v. Zalon, 208 Misc. 855, 145 N.Y.S.2d 269 (prohibition against 'loitering or remaining' in parks after midnight held constitutional); City of Portland v. Goodwin, 187......

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