People on Complaint of Samboy v. Sherman

CourtNew York Magistrate Court
Citation158 N.Y.S.2d 835
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, on complaint of Stephen SAMBOY v. Rubin SHERMAN, Defendant. City Magistrates' Court of City of New York, Municipal Term Court, Borough of Manhattan
Decision Date18 January 1957

Page 835

158 N.Y.S.2d 835
PEOPLE of the State of New York, on complaint of Stephen SAMBOY
v.
Rubin SHERMAN, Defendant.
City Magistrates' Court of City of New York, Municipal Term
Court, Borough of Manhattan.
Jan. 18, 1957.

Page 836

Peter Campbell Brown, Corp. Counsel, New York City, by Joseph M. Callahan and Janet H. Lewin, New York City, for the People.

Samuel Schaeffer, New York City, for defendant.

OHRINGER, City Magistrate.

The defendant, an employee of Eisner Trucking Company, is charged with operating a motor vehicle, as a public cartman without having obtained a license therefor as required by the provisions of Article 15, Section B32-92.0 et seq. of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, entitled, 'Public Carts and Cartmen.'

At the time of the trial on October 30, 1956, it was stipulated and agreed that the facts adduced and relevant would also apply to the following cases:

Docket #08067: Ernest Washington, defendant;

Docket #08075: Anthony Abruzzo, defendant;

Docket #08059: Abe Shapiro, defendant;

Docket #08898: William Hill, defendant;

Docket #08010: Nathan Friedenbaum, defendant;

that the decision in this case will be the decision in all of the cases and that separate verdicts would be rendered.

The pertinent provisions of the ordinance involved, reads as follows:

' § B32-92.0 Definitions.----

'a. Whenever used in this article the term 'public cart' shall mean and include every vehicle, either horse-drawn or motordriven, which is kept for hire or used to carry merchandise, household or office furniture or other bulky articles within the city, for pay.

'b. The term 'public cartman' shall mean the owner of a public cart.

' § B-32-93.0 License required.----

'It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause the operation of any public cart without a license therefor.'

The defendant as a defense to the charges urges two propositions:

First, that on June 2, 1954, the then License Commissioner, who is not the present License Commissioner, did grant to him an exemption from the need of procuring a public cartman's license as provided in the Administrative Code Section. It is the defendant's contention that such exemption was in existence when the present offense was alleged to have occurred and that in consequence he is not guilty of the present charge. In answer to this contention, the People state that the exemption no longer exists because the conditions under which the exemption had been granted have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • State v. Boucher, No. 13261
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 31, 1988
    ...Thayer v. California Development Co., 164 Cal. 117, 127, 128 P. 21 (1912); State ex rel. Anderson v. Witthaus, supra; People v. Sherman, 158 N.Y.S.2d 835, 837 (Mag.Ct.1957); State v. Mulder, 290 Or. 899, 903-904, 629 P.2d 816 (1981); Frawley Ranches, Inc. v. Lasher, 270 N.W.2d 366, 369 (S.D......
  • People v. Hawkins, Docket No. 116268
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • November 21, 1989
    ...306 (Okla Crim App, 1980); see also Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v Aveco, Inc [800 F.2d 59, 63 (C.A.3, 1986) ]; People v. Sherman [158 N.Y.S.2d 835, 837 (1957) ]. "The terms 'open to the public' and to which 'the public has access' [in drunk driving statutes] are usually held to b......
2 cases
  • State v. Boucher, No. 13261
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 31, 1988
    ...Thayer v. California Development Co., 164 Cal. 117, 127, 128 P. 21 (1912); State ex rel. Anderson v. Witthaus, supra; People v. Sherman, 158 N.Y.S.2d 835, 837 (Mag.Ct.1957); State v. Mulder, 290 Or. 899, 903-904, 629 P.2d 816 (1981); Frawley Ranches, Inc. v. Lasher, 270 N.W.2d 366, 369 (S.D......
  • People v. Hawkins, Docket No. 116268
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • November 21, 1989
    ...306 (Okla Crim App, 1980); see also Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v Aveco, Inc [800 F.2d 59, 63 (C.A.3, 1986) ]; People v. Sherman [158 N.Y.S.2d 835, 837 (1957) ]. "The terms 'open to the public' and to which 'the public has access' [in drunk driving statutes] are usually held to b......

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