People v. Benc
| Decision Date | 11 June 1942 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BENC et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Special Sessions of City of New York, Appellate Part.
Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Emil Benc, Gus Hasrato and Shenk Realty and Construction Company on charge of having violated B32-167.0 of Article 23, of chapter 32 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York known as the Court of the City of New York, Aurelio, J., convicting the defendants, the defendants appeal by permission of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals.
Judgments reversed and complaints dismissed.
DESMOND, J., dissenting in part. Frederick E. Crane and Bernard Trencher, both of New York City, for appellants.
William C. Chanler, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Charles F. Murphy and Paxton Blair, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The three defendants, Benc, Hasrato and Shenk Realty and Construction Company, have been convicted of maintaining a laundry without a license in violation of sections B32-167.0, B32-168.0 and B32-175.0 of article 23 of chapter 32 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, L.1937, Extra Session, ch. 929.
The premises upon which the laundry is alleged to have been maintained is a six-story, sixty-four family apartment house, of which Benc is the superintendent and the corporate defendant is the owner. Defendant Hasrato is the owner of a coin-operated Bendix Home Laundry machine which he installed in the basement of the apartment house in question under an arrangement whereby Shenk Realty and Construction Company was to receive ten per cent of the gross proceeds from the machine and Benc was to receive back any coins deposited by him in the machine. The machine is so constructed that upon the depositing of a dime in a coin slot thereon the controls are released so that they may be operated. The clothes to be washed are placed in a revolving cylinder through a door in front of the machine, soap is poured into an opening on the top of the machine and a dial is set which determines the length of time for each operation. A switch is then turned on to put the machine in motion. Thereupon water is automatically drawn in, the clothes are washed in suds, the soapy water is drawn off, two rinsing waters are successively injected and the water is removed from the clothes by rapid spinning of the cylinder. All of this occurs automatically without further help from the operator after a coin has been deposited and the dials set.
Section B32-167.0 of the Administrative Code provides that ‘Whenever used in this article the word ‘laundry’ shall mean and include:
‘1. 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, or
(Italics ours.)
Section B32-168.0 of the Administrative Code provides that ‘It shall be unlawful for any person to establish, maintain, or operate a laundry without a license therefor’ and section B32-175.0 provides for punishment for ‘Any person who shall engage in the business of, establish, maintain, conduct, carry on or operate a laundry without a license therefor * * *.’
Section B32-174.0 of the Code contains a specific exemption. It reads: ‘The provisions of this article shall not apply to any female engaged in doing custom laundry work at her home for a regular family trade, nor to any room, rooms, or portion thereof, located in a tenement house or other dwelling, in which domestic laundry work is done by or for the occupants of such building exclusively.’
For conviction for violation of the ordinance the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Carillo
...the occasion of a deprivation of his liberty or property.'' (Italics by the court), and again, in the case of People v. Benc, 288 N.Y. 318, at page 323, 43 N.E.2d 61, at page 63, the Court said: 'Statutes which are penal in character must be narrowly and strictly construed and in manner not......
-
People v. Glubo
...be strictly and narrowly construed 'in manner not to embrace cases which do not clearly fall within' its terms (cf. People v. Benc, 288 N.Y. 318, 323, 43 N.E.2d 61, 63; People v. Vetri, 309 N.Y. 401, 405-406, 131 N.E.2d 568, 570). But even if this rule of strict construction be applied here......
-
Trio Distributor Corp. v. City of Albany
...injury'. This is not a situation where a citizen is left in doubt as to the applicability to him of a criminal statute (People v. Benc, 288 N.Y. 318, 43 N.E.2d 61; Winters v. People of State of New York, 333 U.S. 507, 515, 516, 68 S.Ct. 665, 92 L.Ed. The majority opinion seems to say that t......
-
Erdman v. Ingraham
...Rule, insofar as a violation thereof authorizes the imposition of penal sanctions, must be strictly construed. (See People v. Benc, 288 N.Y. 318, 323, 43 N.E.2d 61, 63; Faingnaert v. Moss, 295 N.Y. 18, 22, 23, 64 N.E.2d 337, 338; People ex rel. Kane v. Sloane, 98 App.Div. 450, 452, 90 N.Y.S......