People v. Polar Vent of America, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1957 |
| Citation | 174 N.Y.S.2d 789,10 Misc.2d 378 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. POLAR VENT OF AMERICA, INC., and Isador Feldstein, Defendants-Appellants. PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EAST COAST ATTIC AND BASEMENT CO., Inc., Doris Schweitzer and Louis Schweitzer, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York County Court |
George M. Levy, Mineola, for appellants.
Frank A. Gulotta, Dist. Atty. of Nassau County, Mineola, for the State.
Defendants appeal from judgments of conviction in the Nassau County District Court for violations of §§ 2143, 2146 and 2147 of the Penal Law, all of which constitute acts of 'Sabbath breaking.' Each of the corporate defendants was fined the sum of Five ($5.00) Dollars and sentence was suspended on the individual defendants. The above-captioned matters were tried separately; however, since the facts involved in each are similar and the questions of law identical, both cases were submitted together on appeal to this Court.
Polar Vent of America, Inc., hereinafter sometimes referred to as 'Polar Vent', is a corporation engaged in the business of selling and installing custom-made aluminum awnings and canopies. The co-defendant, Isadore Feldstein, is Secretary of the defendant corporation and in charge of a 'showroom' maintained by Polar Vent on Jericho Turnpike, Mineola, New York. At this showroom the corporation maintains a display of sample awnings, no one of which samples is actually removed from the showroom and sold. The showroom is staffed by defendant Feldstein and employees whose job it is to talk with visitors to the showroom and try to make appointments to visit the customers' homes. No orders are taken at the showroom, no prices are quoted and no money is accepted. Every job is a custom job, the price of which depends on the dimensions and character of the particular job. No manufacturing is done on the premises nor is any stock or inventory maintained there.
Defendant, East Coast Attic and Basement Co., Inc., hereinafter sometimes referred to as 'East Coast', is engaged in the business of custom building finished attics and basements of homes. Defendants Doris Schweitzer and Louis Schweitzer are President and Vice President, respectively, of East Coast and are in charge of a showroom located on Jericho Turnpike, Mineola, New York. The showroom is divided into a number of sections, each of which is finished as a sample room, corresponding to the work of the corporation. As in the operation of Polar Vent Corporation, no orders are taken, no prices are quoted and no money is accepted at the showroom on Sunday or any other day of the week. The Schweitzers and other employees simply discuss the sample models with visitors to the showroom and try to make an appointment to visit their homes. All negotiations are made when or after a salesman visits a customer's home. The evidence further disclosed that upwards of three hundred visitors came to the showroom on the day on which the alleged violations occurred.
The Sabbath is a political and civil institution as well as a religious institution and, as such, its regulation is properly within the powers of the civil government (Hennington v. State of Georgia, 163 U.S. 299, 16 S.Ct. 1086, 41 L.Ed. 166; People v. Friedman, 302 N.Y. 75, 96 N.E.2d 184; People v. Dunford, 207 N.Y. 17, 100 N.E. 433). In this state the Sabbath exists as a day of rest by common law, and without the necessity of legislative action to establish it. All that the Legislature does by the 'Sabbath Laws' is to regulate its observance (Lindenmuller v. People, 33 Barb. 548).
The Sabbath laws are remedial statutes in harmony with the religious sentiment of the public and intended to promote public morals and good order (People v. Moses, 140 N.Y. 214, 35 N.E. 499). Such legislation is not to be given a narrow and technical construction; but rather a reasonable and common sense interpretation must be given such as will render the legislative intention effectual in view of the evil sought to be suppressed (Smith v. Wilcox, 24 N.Y. 353). They are to be limited by the reasons for their enactment, however (People v. Dunford, supra), and, the Court of Appeals cautions, "Acts otherwise innocent and lawful do not become crimes, unless there is a clear and positive expression of the legislative intent to make them criminal" (People v. Shifrin, 301 N.Y. 445, 447, 94 N.D.2d 724, 725).
The intent of the Legislature is set forth in § 2140 of the Penal Law which states:
'The first day of the week being by general consent set apart for rest and religious uses, the law prohibits the doing on that day of certain acts hereinafter specified, which are serious interruptions of the repose and religious liberty of the community.'
The defendants were convicted for violating §§ 2143, 2146 and 2147, all of which are included within Article 192 of the Penal Law which deals with regulation of the Sabbath. Section 2143 prohibits all labor on Sunday except works of necessity and charity. Section 2146 proscribes 'All trades, manufacturers, agricultural or mechanical employments on the first day of the week' except works of necessity, and § 2147 makes unlawful 'All manner of public selling or offering for sale of any property upon Sunday,' except for some limited, specifically described articles and shops.
In neither of the cases appealed from is the record sufficient to sustain a conviction for a violation of § 2147. In neither case is there any evidence that any offer to sell was made by any of the defendants. The showrooms were merely places to display sample wares. No prices were quoted, no money was accepted, no memorandum of a sale was given. The mere displaying of merchandise and obtaining of names for future appointments to discuss a possible sale, with nothing more, do not constitute any of the traditional elements of a sale or selling as to fall within the proscription of § 2147.
Defendants contend that the convictions under § 2143, which prohibits all labor on Sunday, must be set aside since the activities conducted by them on Sunday do not come within the generally accepted meaning of the term 'labor.' Webster's Dictionary defines labor this way: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Acme Markets, Inc.
...religious liberty. (See, e.g., People v. East Coast Attic & Basement Co., 4 N.Y.2d 954, 175 N.Y.S.2d 825, 151 N.E.2d 621, affg. 10 Misc.2d 378, 174 N.Y.S.2d 789; People v. Moses, 140 N.Y. 214, 215--217, 35 N.E. 499, 500; People ex rel. Bender v. Joyce, 174 App.Div. 574, 579--580, 161 N.Y.S.......
-
People on Complaint of Follar v. Finkelstein
...Here the court drew a distinction between §§ 2143 and 2146 on the one hand and § 2147 on the other. The court held (10 Misc.2d p. 379, 174 N.Y.S.2d p. 791,) as to both, however, that 'The Sabbath Laws are remedial statutes in harmony with the religious sentiment of the public and intended t......
-
Holly v. Pennysaver Corp.
...consider the distribution of the "Pennysaver" as a business practice within the statute's protective ambit (cf. People v. Polar Vent of Amer., 10 Misc.2d 378, 174 N.Y.S.2d 789, affd. 4 N.Y.2d 954, 175 N.Y.S.2d 825, 151 N.E.2d 621). It is enough that the defendants' activity is profit motiva......
-
People v. Abrahams
...definitions of each of those terms themselves. So 'labor' has been defined as not being limited to menial work (People v. Polar Vent of Amer., 10 Misc.2d 378, 174 N.Y.S.2d 789, affd., 4 N.Y.2d 954, 175 N.Y.S.2d 825, 151 N.E.2d 621). In the Polar Vent case, employees who did no other work th......