People v. James H. Northrop, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 April 1980
• Citation: 106 Misc.2d 440,432 N.Y.S.2d 45
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES H. NORTHROP, INC., Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NORLYNN REALTY CORP., Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jean K. NORTHROP, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 45

432 N.Y.S.2d 45

106 Misc.2d 440

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES H. NORTHROP, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NORLYNN REALTY CORP., Defendant-Appellant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jean K. NORTHROP, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts.

April 17, 1980.

Reuben R. Kaufman, East Islip, for defendants-appellants.

David N. Hilgendorff, Corp. Counsel, Long Beach (Carolyn A. Cairns, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Before PITTONI, J. P., and SLIFKIN and O'GORMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgments of conviction unanimously reversed on the law, fines remitted and accusatory instruments dismissed.

The defendants entered pleas of guilty to section 13-34(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Long Beach in satisfaction of all outstanding charges upon a determination that such provision was constitutional and, after sentencing, appealed from said judgments of conviction.

Section 13-34(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Long Beach requires a grantee to obtain a Certificate of Compliance from the building inspector within sixty days after the transfer of title. The application for a Certificate of Compliance contains a section wherein an applicant is requested to consent to an inspection of the premises. Since a Certificate of Compliance signifies that the premises complies with all applicable laws it is apparent that such a certificate would not be issued without an inspection. In view of the foregoing, it is this court's opinion that section 13-34(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Long Beach is unconstitutional as it subjects the grantees to criminal penalties for the failure to permit a warrantless search (see Camara v. Municipal Court of the City of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930; See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943; Marshall v. Barlow's Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 56 L.Ed.2d 305; Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486; cf. Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d 60; United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87; cf. also, Loventhal v. City of Mount Vernon, 51 A.D.2d 732, 379 N.Y.S.2d 130).