People on Complaint of Emuru v. Rosenberg

CourtNew York Magistrate Court
Citation6 Misc.2d 529,159 N.Y.S.2d 912
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, on complaint of Policewoman Evelyn EMURU, v. Mae ROSENBERG, Defendant. City Magistrate's Court of City of New York, Williamsburg Court, Borough of Brooklyn
Decision Date14 February 1957

Page 912

159 N.Y.S.2d 912
6 Misc.2d 529
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, on complaint of
Policewoman Evelyn EMURU,
v.
Mae ROSENBERG, Defendant.
City Magistrate's Court of City of New York, Williamsburg
Court, Borough of Brooklyn.
Feb. 14, 1957.

Page 913

Rose Weisler, New York City, Police Legal Bureau, for the people.

Leonard R. Arnberg, Brooklyn, for defendant.

WALLACH, City Magistrate.

The defendant was charged with being a disorderly person, and is alleged to have violated Section 899, subdivision 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The issue involved herein, is one of law, since the defendant offered no proof at the end of the People's case and rested upon the whole case and relied upon the presumption of innocence and the correlated duty cast upon the People to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The facts elicited, briefly, are as follows:

On November 5, 1956, at about one o'clock in the afternoon of that day, the complainant, a policewoman, called at the tearoom premises of the defendant at 233 Duffield Street, Brooklyn, New York, and ordered a lettuce and tomato sandwich and a cup of tea. After her 'repast,' the complainant was escorted over to a table where the defendant was seated, and the defendant spread cards in front of the complainant, and proceeded to predict [6 Misc.2d 530] the future course of events in the life of the complainant, observing very prophetically that the review of the cards in the hands of the defendant indicated that the same looked very good for her, telling her of the forthcoming mixed happy events in her life, and that she (the complainant), was the first customer that she (the defendant) had for the day.

As the complainant proceeded to leave, she noticed a plate with 50cents on the side of it, which was placed before her.

The complainant thereupon also left 50cents, although the defendant did not ask or request this fee in question. All that the defendant did was to set up the proverbial 'props' for a contribution by the complainant, of the same or similar sum, or for that matter, any sum, depending upon the self-will of the hearer of the prognostications as to future events by the defendant.

Page 914

The proof also indicated that there was a sign on the wall of this particular tearoom, which indicated that readings were for pleasure and for fun only, and this same characterization of the act of 'soothsaying' by the defendant was contained on the menu, which read:

'Free readings for entertainment and amusement also. No charge. In requesting a free reading, whatever is told you is in the spirit of fun and amusement only and in no way to be considered as fortune telling.' (Italics the writer's.)

Additionally, on a slip of paper signed by the complainant, the following was contained thereon:

'Scotch Tearoom & Luncheon

'I, being of full mind and intelligence, and knowing full well that future events cannot be predicted, or foretold, by requesting this free character reading agree that it shall in no way be interpreted by me, nor does it represent the telling or prediction of the future; that it is being given to, and accepted by me solely and only for my entertainment and amusement and no fee has been requested or charged therefor; and that I have read, do understand and agree to the statements made herein.' (Italics the writer's.)

The defendant, in having rested at the end of the People's case, after motions were made by her to dismiss the complaint upon grounds that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • People v. Fyfe
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • February 25, 1957
    ...deemed as most improper and prejudicial to impart this information to the press for publication during the pendency of this jury trial. [6 Misc.2d 529] If, as we believe, a jury's verdict of conviction should be set aside on the basis of the People's case, we should not avoid a difficult an......
1 cases
  • People v. Fyfe
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • February 25, 1957
    ...deemed as most improper and prejudicial to impart this information to the press for publication during the pendency of this jury trial. [6 Misc.2d 529] If, as we believe, a jury's verdict of conviction should be set aside on the basis of the People's case, we should not avoid a difficult an......

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