People on Complaint of Fricano v. Silverman

CourtNew York Magistrate Court
Citation183 N.Y.S.2d 700,16 Misc.2d 158
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York on the complaint of Patrolman John S. FRICANO v. Herman SILVERMAN, Defendant. PEOPLE of the State of New York on the complaint of Patrolman John S. FRICANO v. Stanley YOUNG, Defendant. City Magistrates' Court of New York City, East New York Court, Borough of Brooklyn
Decision Date10 March 1959

Page 700

183 N.Y.S.2d 700
16 Misc.2d 158
PEOPLE of the State of New York on the complaint of
Patrolman John S. FRICANO
v.
Herman SILVERMAN, Defendant.
PEOPLE of the State of New York on the complaint of
Patrolman John S. FRICANO
v.
Stanley YOUNG, Defendant.
City Magistrates' Court of New York City, East New York
Court, Borough of Brooklyn.
March 10, 1959.

Page 701

[16 Misc.2d 159] Rose L. Weisler, Police Department Legal Bureau, New York City, for the People.

Turk & Walzer, New York City, by Carl Turk, New York City, for defendants.

MATZKIN, City Magistrate.

The defendants are charged with violating the provisions of Section 82d7-15.0, subdivision b, of the Administrative Code in that they

'did unlawfully park motor vehicles between the building line and the curb line for the purpose of storage, display and sale of said vehicles * * *.'

At the trial it was stipulated that the Silverman case be tried and that the testimony of that case be binding on the defendant Young.

The facts adduced at this trial, briefly, are as follows: Four motor vehicles were parked outside premises of the defendant Silverman at 1524 Bushwick Avenue and two cars were parked outside premises of the defendant Young at 1520 Bushwick Avenue, both Brooklyn. The defendants are auto dealers. Said cars occupied about 16 feet of the paved surface, at right angles immediately adjacent to the defendant's store front, between the building and the curb, within the area which was formerly courtyard. The distance from the curb to the store front is 39 feet. The curb in front of the premises 1520 was cut but there was no cut in the curb in front of the adjacent premises 1524. The dimensions of the roadway, sidewalk and space formerly courtyard at the portion of Bushwick Avenue on which are located the defendant's premises, are 120 feet, sub-divided into a vehicular roadway of 42 feet, and an area made up of 19 feet of sidewalk and 20 feet of space which was formerly courtyard, making a total of 39 feet on each side. The 20-foot courtyard area was established by the provisions of Chapter 228, Laws of 1863, which provided that '20 feet of said (Bushwick) Avenue, between Wall

Page 702

Street and City Line shall be set aside and used for courtyard only.' It is this courtyard area which was subsequently repealed.

By virtue of Chapter 396, Laws of 1909, and Resolution No. 21 of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, adopted on September 20, 1918, the jurisdiction of Bushwick Avenue was assigned to the Park Department of the City of New York.

By virtue of Chapter 929, Laws of 1937 (An Act to provide an Administrative Code for the City of New York in harmony with and supplemental to the New York City Charter), the jurisdiction of Bushwick Avenue was turned over to the Borough President on January 1st, 1938.

It was during the period that the jurisdiction of Bushwick Avenue was assigned to the Park Department of the City of [16 Misc.2d 160] New York that the prescription of the 20-foot courtyard was repealed.

Section 82d7-15.0, subdivision b, of the Administrative Code provides that 'It shall be unlawful for any...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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