People on Complaint of Laskowski v. Weinberger

CourtNew York Magistrate Court
Citation8 Misc.2d 953,165 N.Y.S.2d 229
Decision Date22 July 1957
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York on the Complaint of Stanley J. LASKOWSKI v. Murray WEINBERGER. City Magistrates' Court of City of New York, Traffic Court, Borough of Manhattan

Page 229

165 N.Y.S.2d 229
8 Misc.2d 953
The PEOPLE of the State of New York on the Complaint of
Stanley J. LASKOWSKI
v.
Murray WEINBERGER.
City Magistrates' Court of City of New York, Traffic Court,
Borough of Manhattan.
July 22, 1957.

Page 230

[8 Misc.2d 954] Ellsworth A. Monahan, Commanding Officer, Legal Bureau, Police Department, New York City, John J. Maguire, New York City, of counsel, for the People.

Mahoney, Spohr & Mahoney, New York City, George A. Spohr, Jr., New York City, and Teague W. McCarthy, of counsel, for defendant.

CREEL, Magistrate.

The defendant, while vending ice cream from a Good Humor ice cream pushcart at approximately 4:40 P.M. on Wednesday, April 3, 1957, in the public highway at a point outside of 88 Wall Street, was served with a 'parking' summons by a police officer for 'parking contrary to posting on signs' alleging a violation of Article 2, Section 15 of the Traffic Regulations of the City of New York. Nearby on a sidewalk, a sign affixed to a stanchion stated 'No Parking 8 A.M. to 6 P.M., Monday to Friday, Department of Traffic.'

Article 2, Section 15 of the Traffic Regulations of New York City provides:

'When official signs have been posted prohibiting, restricting, or limiting the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles, no person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle in violation of the restrictions stated on such signs.'

The defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that this provision of the Traffic Regulations is invalid when applied to pushcarts or any other non motor driven vehicle. It is contended by the defendant that no regulation promulgated by the city can contravene or vary the general

Page 231

law of the State as to 'Parking' set out in the general Vehicle and Traffic Law, Article 1, Section 2, Subdivision 20 wherein 'Parking' is clearly so defined as to limit its application to motor driven vehicles only, and hence cannot be extended by municipal regulation to pushcarts or other non motor driven vehicles. This section of the general law provides:

"Park,' 'parking' or 'parked' shall mean the stopping of a motor vehicle or motor cycle upon any public highway and leaving such motor vehicle or motor cycle unattended by a person capable of operating it, for a period longer than necessary to load or unload passengers or freight. This definition shall apply to all ordinances made by local authorities as provided by this chapter, notwithstanding the provisions of any local ordinance made prior to the adoption of this subdivision.'

As stated above the summons here involved was issued for 'Parking' a pushcart which is conceded to be neither a motor vehicle nor a motor cycle nor any other type of vehicle to which this definition of parking can properly be applied.

[8 Misc.2d 955] In further support of its position the defendant cites the case of City of Rochester v. Quine, 1939, 171 Misc. 598, 11 N.Y.S.2d 918, 920, in which the Court held that the attempt by the City of Rochester to enact a parking ordinance which related to pushcarts was contrary to the State Vehicle and Traffic Laws, Section 2, Subdivision 20, and was void, stating in part: 'In this conflict of definition of parking, therefore, the definition set forth in § 2 of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • People v. Bove
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • December 1, 1992
    ...ordinance, such that the Court must strike it down or dismiss the tickets in issue. See, People on Complaint of Laskowski v. Weinberger, 8 Misc.2d 953, 165 N.Y.S.2d 229 (1957); City of Rochester v. Quine, 171 Misc. 598, 11 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1939) and Gilsey Buildings v. Incorporated Village of ......
1 cases
  • People v. Bove
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • December 1, 1992
    ...ordinance, such that the Court must strike it down or dismiss the tickets in issue. See, People on Complaint of Laskowski v. Weinberger, 8 Misc.2d 953, 165 N.Y.S.2d 229 (1957); City of Rochester v. Quine, 171 Misc. 598, 11 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1939) and Gilsey Buildings v. Incorporated Village of ......

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