People v. Rutuelo
| Decision Date | 12 August 1976 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. John RUTUELO, Defendant. |
| Court | New York District Court |
Defendant is charged under the Rules and Regulations of the Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission for driving a camper pickup on a parkway in violation of subdivision 4 of § 415.6(e), (Official Compilation of Code, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, Title 9, Subtitle I) which says: 'No pickup camper shall be permitted to use a parkway regardless of type of registration.'
Defendant, by way of defense, supplies a copy of registration registering the vehicle as 'SUBN' and further the advice of the Department of Motor Vehicles, to wit:
The official source of this admonition remains unidentified. Nevertheless, the vehicle has been duly registered passenger 'SUBN' class.
By implication, since he has been advised to register his vehicle as a passenger vehicle, and since § 415.6(c) states the 'station wagons or suburban type passenger vehicles shall be permitted on parkways,' subject to certain regulations, defendant contends that the ordinance constitutes an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of the State's police power and a denial of due process and equal protection of the law.
Furthermore, § 415.6(d) provides that:
'Recreation type vehicles, including small van type, Volkswagen, Econoline, etc., shall be permitted use of parkways providing they comply with the regulations specified in subdivision (c) of this section, have side-body windows and are registered as passenger vehicles.'
The Section 415.6 restricts the use of parkway to automobiles classed as pleasure vehicles, further excluding those used for carrying goods or commercial purposes.
Pedestrians, horses, small power propelled vehicles are excluded. That fits the general purpose expressed in paragraph (a), and the underlying purpose of safety and traffic control is apparent.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rutuelo v. State
...23, 1982, Lowery, J.].) However, the charge was dismissed on the ground that the regulation was unconstitutional. (People v. Rutuelo, 87 Misc.2d 754, 386 N.Y.S.2d 629.) Does this holding void ab initio the original probable There is no question that at the outset the officer had probable ca......
-
People v. Stock
...677, 173 N.Y.S.2d 213), and such regulation when adopted is presumed to be reasonable and just. The case of People v. Rutuelo, Dist.Ct., 87 Misc.2d 754, 386 N.Y.S.2d 629, cited by the defendant, is distinguishable from the case before this Court. In the Rutuelo case, the regulation provided......