People v. Rubenstein

• Decision Date: 05 February 1959
• Citation: 17 Misc.2d 10,182 N.Y.S.2d 548
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Abraham RUBENSTEIN, Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Special Sessions

Page 548

182 N.Y.S.2d 548

17 Misc.2d 10

PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Abraham RUBENSTEIN, Defendant.

Court of Special Sessions of City of New York, Kings County, Part 2.

Feb. 5, 1959.

Edward Silver, Dist. Atty., Kings County, Brooklyn (Harold D. Travin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn), for the People.

Bernard Klieger, Brooklyn, for defendant.

Before BENJAMIN GASSMAN, P. J., and ALFRED J. CAWSE and CHARLES SOLOMON, JJ.

BENJAMIN GASSMAN, Presiding Justice.

The defendant was tried on an information charging him with the crime of 'performing an act of labor on Sunday'. The information alleges that 'the defendant, on November 2nd, 1958, the said day being a Sunday, in the County of Kings, engaged in a trade and mechanical employment and performed an act of labor by causing, suffering and permitting the operation of washing machines in a launderette at premises No. 616 Brighton Beach Avenue, the same not being a work of necessity'.

At the trial, the police officer testified that at 11 A.M. on the date in question, he passed the said Brighton Beach Avenue premises; that the said premises was a three-story building, the street floor of which was occupied by the laundromat and the upper floors by residential tenants; that the said store was all lit up and a sign in the window read 'open Sunday'. He entered the premises and saw ten of the twenty automatic washing machines and dryers in operation. The defendant was bending over one of the machines making some mechanical adjustment to it. The officer saw people coming in and out of the premises during all the time he was there, the said persons inserting coins in the machines and operating them. The defendant told the police officer that he was in charge of the laundromat.

The defendant denied making that admission to the police officer. He testified that he was employed by the owner of the laundromat as a service man to service the washing machines and that he worked solely for that owner. He explained his presence at laundromat on that Sunday by saying that he was there having his own laundry washed in one of the machines. It appeared from his testimony that he lived about five miles from the Brighton Beach Avenue premises. However he explained that this laundromat was the nearest one to his residence that was open on Sunday. While he denied that he had anything to do with the operation of that laundromat on the Sunday in question, he admitted that he was given the key to the store by his employer and that he used that key to open the store on that Sunday morning. Apparently he also turned on the lights that illuminated that store. The owner of that business was not present there that morning, and the defendant was the only person connected with that business, who was present while the ten machines were in full operation that morning.

Regardless of whether the defendant was washing his own laundry in one of the machines on that Sunday, or not, we conclude and find that he was there also in the additional capacity of representing his employer and that he was then in charge of the said premises as his employer's agent.

Section 2143 of the Penal Law, on which this charge is based, provides that 'all labor on Sunday is prohibited, excepting the works of necessity and charity. In works of necessity or charity is included whatever is needful during the day for the good order, health or comfort of the community'.

The injunction against performing unnecessary labor on the Sabbath finds its origin in the Old Testament. Exodus and Deuteronomy are the Old Testament Books which, as part of the Ten Commandments, include the provision for the observance of the Sabbath. In Ancient Israel, the Decalogue was considered part of the law of the land, and the seventh day of the week was considered as a day of worship. Sunday, or the first day of the week, first appears as a day of rest in an edict promulgated by Emperor Constantine in Rome in the year 321. That edict directed all judges, city people, and tradesmen 'to rest upon the venerable day of the sun'. Emperor Constantine selected Sunday because it was the day of the sun god of ancient Rome. Early Roman Christians, although they rejected the idea of a sun god, made Sunday their day for common prayer and dining. Emperor Constantine's legislation and early Christian practice set the pattern for Sunday as the Sabbath, a pattern continued during the Middle Ages in the laws of the Holy Roman Empire. Saxon tribes, too, adopted similar laws and brought them to England, where they were extended and enforced. Those laws found their way into the thirteen Colonies and they remained in effect when the United States was formed. As the new States entered the Union, they used old Sunday laws as their models.

In New York State, Article 192 of the Penal Law (Sections 2140 to 2154) is entitled 'Sabbath' and the legislative intent is set forth in Section 2140, as follows:

'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'.

One of the acts specified as prohibited, is the performance of any labor on Sunday which is neither necessary nor charitable. Accordingly, where it appears that the labor performed on...