People on Information of Ferguson v. Andob Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 July 1960
• Citation: 206 N.Y.S.2d 89,25 Misc.2d 542
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York on the Information of Patrolman Thomas FERGUSON, Respondent, v. ANDOB CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 89

206 N.Y.S.2d 89

25 Misc.2d 542

PEOPLE of the State of New York on the Information of Patrolman Thomas FERGUSON, Respondent, v. ANDOB CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

Westchester County Court.

July 20, 1960.

Joseph F. Gagliardi, Dist. Atty., White Plains, for the people.

Cerrato, Nayor & Galloway, Yonkers (John H. Galloway, Jr., Yonkers, of counsel), for defendant.

FRANK S. McCULLOUGH, Judge.

Defendant corporation appeals from a judgment entered in the Court of Special Sessions of the City Court of Yonkers, convicting the defendant of a violation of § 2146 of the Penal Law for carrying on a trade on Sunday in violation of the Sabbath Laws. The information upon which the appellant was tried and convicted charged in substance that the defendant violated § 2146 of the Penal Law by causing to be operated a Laundry-Mat where the public for a fee was allowed to use machines located in premises at 214-216 Ashburton Ave., Yonkers, N. Y. to wash, launder and dry clothes therein, on the first day of the week (Sunday).

Section 2146 of the Penal Law, which is entitled, 'Trades, manufactures, and mechanical employments prohibited on Sunday,' provides:

'All trades, manufactures, agricultural or mechanical employments upon the first day of the week are prohibited, except that when the same are works of necessity they may be performed on that day in their usual and orderly manner, so as not to interfere with the repose and religious liberty of the community.'

The facts are basically undisputed. The defendant owned and maintained a coin operated, self-service, unattended launderette. This self-service launderette was open and accessible to the public on Sunday, August 16, 1959. It was the defendant's practice to keep said premises open to the public every day of the week, including Sunday.

Patrons of the launderette would enter the premises and operate the coin operated washing machines and driers in the process of doing their personal family wash. None of the corporate defendant's officers, agents or employees were present in the store or participated in any way with or on behalf of any of the patrons so engaged in doing their personal wash, on the Sunday referred to in the indictment.

The People's arresting officer and other patrolmen testified that they observed the premises and the operations therein on the Sunday in question, and that the patrons were washing their own or their family's clothing. They testified they observed no undue disturbance, noise or other commotion either within the store, at its entrance or in the immediate vicinity thereof. The arresting officer additionally testified that he had not served summonses on owners of other types of vending machines, such as telephone booths, cigarette vending machines, soda-pop, peanut, etc., even though he found them operating on Sunday, and that he was never given orders to issue summonses in such cases.

The defendant produced several witnesses who testified that if the launderettes were closed on Sunday they would still have to do a substantial part of their wash on Sunday, that no other day was available to do such work because of the work shifts of such witnesses, and that the use of the launderette was a necessity and not merely a convenience. The defendant also produced an expert witness who had been associated with all phases of laundry business who traced the evolution of the commercial laundry business. Two basic questions were presented for the determination of the Court below:

'1. Did the defendant's maintenance and control of its coin operated, self-service, unattended launderette on Sunday constitute a 'trade' within the meaning of the statute?; and '2. If it constituted a 'trade', was it a 'work of necessity' which may be performed on Sunday without interfering with the repose and religious liberty of the community?'

The purpose of laws prohibiting certain forms of labor and business activity on the Sabbath is expressed in State v. Kidd, 167 Ohio St. 521, 150 N.E.2d 413, 416, in this language:

'The policy of Sunday laws is based upon the observed fact, derived from long experience and the custom of all nations, that periods of rest from ordinary pursuits are requisite to the well-being, morally and physically, of a people * * *. This is the foundation and policy of all statutes regulating the observance of a day of rest, * * *.'

A variety of New York decisions disclose a lack of uniformity. In Volume XXXV, Notre Dame Lawyer, No. 3 (May, 1960) at page 429, a summary of the decisions appears as follows:

'In People v. Gwyer, 7 App.Div.2d 711 , a conviction for violating the Sunday law was reversed as to an owner of a laundromat because he was prosecuted under the section of the statute relating to selling rather than that pertaining to the carrying on of a trade. In another case with similar facts, the conviction was affirmed because the prosecution was brought under the trade section of the statute. People v. Kaplan, 8 App.Div.2d 163, 188 N.Y.S.2d 673. To add to the confusion created by different results being reached in factually similar situations, simply because the prosecution is brought under different sections of the law, in People v. Welt, 14 Misc.2d 275, 178 N.Y.S.2d 313, the owner of a laundromat had his conviction for performing a trade reversed because he was not physically present, hence was not performing a trade. In People v. Rubenstein, 17 Misc.2d 10, 182 N.Y.S.2d 548, the defendant was convicted for laboring on Sunday because he opened the door of the laundromat and turned on the lights. The court distinguished Gwyer and Welt in that here the defendant was present and he worked; whereas in Gwyer there had been no selling and in Welt the defendant had not been present. It seems to be generally true, however, that it is legal for a citizen to do his laundry on Sunday at a laundromat. People v. Aliprantis, 8 App.Div. 276, 187 N.Y.S.2d 477, applied the ideas of custom and usage permitting such work, and said:

"Solvenliness is no part of any religion, nor is it conducive to rest. Scripture commends cleanliness. '* * * (A)nd the man shall wash his clothes, and shall be clean * * * and his clothes being washed he shall be clean.'' (Leviticus, ch. 13, pars. 6, 34).

'A self service supermarket employee was acquitted of selling under the New York law because she merely did the menial work in the store and, 'Thus, this is no proof that the defendant herein intended to sell or offered for sale the prohibited meat, within the meaning of the statute, on a Sunday.' People v. Kless, 17 Misc.2d 7, 190 N.Y.S.2d 82, 83. A conviction for selling...