People on Information of Stelzl v. Friedman

• Decision Date: 15 June 1971
• Citation: 66 Misc.2d 802,322 N.Y.S.2d 481
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York on the Information of John E. STELZL, Complainant, v. Irving FRIEDMAN, d/b/a Cleaning Genie Dry Cleanomats, Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Special Sessions

Page 481

322 N.Y.S.2d 481

66 Misc.2d 802

The PEOPLE of the State of New York on the Information of

John E. STELZL, Complainant, v. Irving FRIEDMAN, d/b/a Cleaning Genie Dry Cleanomats, Defendant.

Court of Special Sessions of City of Yonkers.

June 15, 1971.

Maurice F. Curran, Corp. Counsel, for complainant.

Farley, Jutkowitz & LoCascio, Yonkers, by Andrew J. Balint, Yonkers, Counsel, for defendant.

ROBERT W. CACACE, City Judge.

The Defendant is charged with violating Section 104.141 of the Code of the City of Yonkers, in that he operated 'a commercial laundry, selling and offering for sale laundry services on the basis of weight, and does not have approved, tested and sealed scales on the premises.'

The ordinance in question entitled 'Section 104.141, Weighing Devices in Laundry Required,' reads as follows:

'All commercial laundries performing, selling or offering for sale laundry services on the basis of weight shall have legal scales of approved type and design properly tested and sealed in their premises.'

The Defendant operates a self-service dry cleaning store where the patron may, after depositing the required number of coins in a machine, have his clothes dry cleaned without the help or aid of any store personnel.

The Defendant takes the position that his premises are not a 'laundry' within the meaning of the ordinance and, that in any event, he does not sell by weight; rather, the customer pays so much a load, with a maximum load being eight pounds, for the reason that the machine will not effectively clean more than eight pounds.

The question posed is whether the statute proscribes the operation of the Defendant's store as described. The ordinance in question is penal in nature and must be strictly constructed against the People and in favor of the accused (People v. Shapiro, 4 N.Y.2d 597, 176 N.Y.S.2d 632, 152 N.E.2d 65; People v. Farone, 308 N.Y. 305, 125 N.E.2d 582, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 828, 76 S.Ct. 57, 100 L.Ed. 739.)

Webster's Third International Dictionary Unabridged 1961 Edition defines 'launder' as follows:

'To wash, (as to clothes) in water * * * to wash and iron.' The same work defines 'laundry' as:

'A commercial establishment where laundry is done.' And 'dry cleaning' as:

'The cleaning of fabrics with a substantially non-aquacous organic solvent (as petroleum naptha or clorinated hydrocarbons) to which special detergents or soaps are added.'

The Court has been unable to find any cases which would be helpful in establishing the legal effect of the word 'laundry.' The New York City Administrative Code distinguishes dry cleaning from laundering, the distinction being emphasized in the Code's view of the possible dangerous effect of what is substantially the same process; i.e., removing dirt from garments. The New York City Administrative Code, Section B32--167.0 defines laundry as 'any place which is used for the purpose of washing, drying, starching or ironing, for the general public, wearing apparel, household linens, or other washable fabrics, or a place used or maintained for the storage, collection or delivery of such articles for such service.' Under the section of the Code dealing with fire prevention, it defines dry cleaning or dry dyeing as 'the act or process of washing or immersing in violatile inflammable oil or liquid a garment, fabric, fibre, substance or article, for the purpose of cleaning or dyeing the same. (New York City Administrative Code, Section C19--2.0)

...