People v. Gold Coast Cadillac, s. 12-89

• Decision Date: 12 September 1989
• Docket Number: Nos. 12-89,13-89,s. 12-89
• Citation: 145 Misc.2d 179,546 N.Y.S.2d 299
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York v. GOLD COAST CADILLAC, Defendant.
• Court: New York Villiage Court

Page 299

546 N.Y.S.2d 299

145 Misc.2d 179

PEOPLE of the State of New York v. GOLD COAST CADILLAC, Defendant.

Nos. 12-89, 13-89.

Village Justice Court of Roslyn Harbor.

Sept. 12, 1989.

Charles Parisi, Pros. Atty., Village of Roslyn Harbor, for people.

Alan A. Bergstein, Lawrence, for Gold Coast Cadillac.

DAVID H. PFEFFER, Village Justice.

On June 19, 1989, in open court, defendant Gold Coast Cadillac pleaded guilty to separate charges of violating respectively Sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the "Paddison Motors Ordinance" of the Incorporated Village of Roslyn Harbor. The Section 6(c) violation related to a violation dealing with signs permitted on the premises, and the Section 6(d) violation related to a violation of that portion of the Ordinance which designated specific hours of permitted operation. As part of the guilty plea, the defendant acknowledged being convicted in this Court of several violations of Section 6(d) of the Ordinance, all within the last year.

Relying upon the provisions of Village Law Section 20-2006, Subsection 1-a, the Court sentenced the defendant to a fine of $1000 for the admitted violation of Section 6(d) and the fine of $350 for the admitted violation of Section 6(c).

Subsequent to the sentencing and before the fines had been paid, defendant, through counsel, informally moved to vacate the sentence on the grounds that it violated the provisions of the pending Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Roslyn Harbor establishing a maximum fine of $250 for any violation. The defendant's position was that at most, the defendant could have been fined $250 for each violation for a total of $500 or, more probably, because of the prior violations of Section 6(d), the instant violation of Section 6(d) should have been considered part of a continuing violation for which no fine could have been imposed. As authority for its position, the defendant relied upon Village of Southhampton v. Platt, 43 N.Y.2d 848, 402 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 373 N.E.2d 1229 (1978) and People v. Multari, (Albany County Ct. 1987), 135 Misc.2d 913, 517 N.Y.S.2d 374 (1987). In addition, the defendant cited an unpublished opinion of the State Comptroller, No. 79-589, and another opinion No. 82-288. The Court has carefully considered all of the matters cited by the defendant but finds them wholly inapposite. Section 20-2006 Subdivision 1-a of the Village Law expressly became effective November 1, 1985. That section states:

A violation of a zoning ordinance adopted prior to September first, nineteen hundred seventy-four is hereby declared to be an offense, punishable by a fine not exceeding three hundred fifty dollars ... for conviction of a first offense; ... and, upon conviction for a third or subsequent offense all of which were committed within a period of five years, punishable by a fine not less than seven hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.... Each weeks's continued violation shall constitute a separate additional violation.

Previously, Section 20-2006 Subdivision 1 had authorized the board of trustees of a village to enforce obedience of such ordinance by proscribing fines not to exceed $250.

In People v. Multari, the guilty pleas and sentences were imposed in April and in June 1985, i.e. prior to the enactment of Subdivision 1-a of Section 20-2006, and, of course, before it became effective. Therefore, the Multari court was concerned with interpreting Subdivision 1 of the statute as then written. Similarly, in Village of Southhampton, the Court of Appeals was concerned with the effect of Subdivision 1. Relying specifically on the language of part -a of Subdivision 1, the Court of Appeals held "this provision does not permit imposition of cumulative fines in excess of $250 for a single but continuing violation."

Subdivision 1-a of Section 20-2006 now creates a new penalty for violation of village ordinances adopted before September 1, 1974. There is no dispute over the fact that the ordinance here in question is within the scope of Subdivision 1-a since it was adopted prior to...