People v. Markowitz

• Decision Date: 29 December 1966
• Citation: 223 N.E.2d 572,277 N.Y.S.2d 149,18 N.Y.2d 953
• Parties: , 223 N.E.2d 572 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Larry MARKOWITZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 149

277 N.Y.S.2d 149

18 N.Y.2d 953, 223 N.E.2d 572

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Larry MARKOWITZ, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 29, 1966.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

Isidore Dollinger, New York City (Arnold Kideckel, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Defendant was charged in two separate complaints with selling scorecards without a license at Yankee Stadium on November 22, 1964 and December 12, 1964. The defendant testified that beginning in April, 1964 he had made various attempts to secure a license to sell the scorecards but had been advised that a license could not be issued to him because of the provisions of the United States Constitution and of Section B36--92.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York providing that a person who shall sell newspapers and periodicals is exempt from the requirements of the law with respect to peddlers and licenses. The defendant was convicted of unlicensed peddling in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, §§ B36--92.0, B36--93.0, B36--98.0.

The Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, Robert U. Molloy, J., entered judgments, and the defendant appealed.

The Appellate Term entered a judgment affirming the judgments of the Criminal Court.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, contending that he was deprived of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel because he had not been advised of his right to the assistance of assigned counsel on his arraignment and at trial, and that he was deprived of due process of law because he was convicted for selling scorecards without a license after having been instructed that a license was not necessary. The People argued in the Court of Appeals that at time of defendant's trial the law did not require assignment of counsel for a petty offense, and that the statute, which was subsequently enacted to provide such right, County Law, Consol.Laws, c. 11, § 722-a, as amended by Laws 1965, c. 878, should not be given retroactive effect.

Judgment reversed and the complaints dismissed. Conviction under the peculiar facts presented in this particular case constitutes a deprivation of due process of law (N.Y.Const. art, I, Section 6; U.S.Const., 14th Amdt.; cf. Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 85 S.Ct. 476, 13 L.Ed.2d 487).

All concur.