People v. Cortlandt Medical Bldg. Associates
| Citation | 153 Misc.2d 692,582 N.Y.S.2d 640 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. CORTLANDT MEDICAL BUILDING ASSOCIATES, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1992 |
| Court | New York Town Court |
Gary Haber, White Plains, for defendant.
Thomas Wood, Town Atty., for People.
Defendant is accused of violating section 6-8A(2) of the Town of Cortlandt Code requiring police and fire departments to report any false alarm to the Town Director of Code Enforcement within twenty four hours of the incident. The Director is required to keep an annual record of such false alarms.
Subdivision 1 of 6-8A requires mandatory fines as follows:
No. of False Alarms Residential Commercial
1 Warning $ 50.00
2 $30.00 $100.00
Each after 2 $30.00 $100.00
Subdivision 2 states that failure by the owner or lessee to pay the fine within thirty days of demand shall be a violation of section 6-12 of the code which in turn provides for additional penalties of a fine not to exceed $250.00 or fifteen days imprisonment or both.
Defendant, a commercial user, is accused of having false alarms on four separate occasions during December, 1990 and January, 1991 requiring $300.00 in mandatory fines which it refuses to pay.
Defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the code is unconstitutional as violative of due process (Article 1 Section 6 of the New York State Constitution and 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution) and equal protection clause (Article 1 Section 11, New York State Constitution and the 14th Amendment U.S. Constitution.)
More specifically defendant argues that there is no provision in the code for defendant to have a hearing prior to the initial determination of whether a reported alarm is false or not. The police or fire officials make their own ex parte determination. Defendant found itself before this Court only because it refused to pay the mandatory fine.
In addition, defendant contends that subsection 1 of section 6-8A penalizes residential and commercial violations differently without providing any rational basis for such differentiation.
This Court finds that an alarm permit holder is deprived of the right to due process because the Town can take away his property without affording him a hearing at which to contest the underlying issue of the falsity of the alarms. "Due process rights do require such a hearing before a person may be divested of a life, liberty or property interest." Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y. v. Hinman, 103 A.D.2d 886, 478 N.Y.S.2d 116 (3rd Dept.1984); See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556; Sniadach v. Family Fin Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349. A person has the right to be heard before such interests are taken away from him. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579, 95 S.Ct. 729, 738, 42 L.Ed.2d 725; People ex rel. Barone v. Fox, 202 N.Y. 616, 96 N.E. 1126. There is a right to due process before a civil penalty may be imposed. Matter of Finkel, Nadler & Goldstein, 46 A.D.2d 196, 361 N.Y.S.2d 941, app. dism., 37 N.Y.2d 740, 374 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 337 N.E.2d 148.
The second argument of defendant relates to equal protection.
The equal protection clause prohibits classifications which are arbitrarily employed to burden a particular group. People v. Liberta, 64 N.Y.2d 152, 485 N.Y.S.2d 207, 474 N.E.2d 567 (1984), cert. den....
To continue reading
Request your trial