People v. Spinelli

• Decision Date: 17 July 1967
• Citation: 282 N.Y.S.2d 354,54 Misc.2d 485
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Frank SPINELLI, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 354

282 N.Y.S.2d 354

54 Misc.2d 485

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Frank SPINELLI, Defendant.

Criminal Court of City of New York, New York County, Part 7A.

July 17, 1967.

Legal Bureau of the New York City Police Department, Ellsworth A. Monahan, Director, New York City, by James J. Burns, New York City, of counsel, for the People.

Slavin & Carr, by Arthur Slavin, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

MORRIS WEINFELD, Judge.

The defendant is connected with a corporation which is in the wholesale fruit and produce industry. That company is licensed and regulated by the United States Department of Commerce (see 7 U.S.C. Sec. 499a et seq.--Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act). It acts as a commission merchant, dealer, broker and the like in the business of buying and handling perishable agricultural commodities and selling them to wholesalers, hospitals, institutions and municipalities in New York and other states. Approximately 1200 carloads and trailer loads are so dealt with each year by defendant's company, about 150 thereof having both its source and its end in New York State.

For some appreciable time defendant's company was part of that general complex of the fruit and produce industry known as the 'Washington Market'. The latter was for countless years a fixture in the life of lower Manhattan Island. It was the largest market of its kind in the world and was the heart of the industry for the receipt, repackaging and transshipment of perishable foodstuffs for the eastern section of this country. As such, because of the very perishable nature of the commodities involved and the need for the distributors and retailers to move their wares to the purchasing and consuming public early each morning, the Washington Market merchandise had to be handled at night. It became, and still is, known as a night industry. Work there generally began late each afternoon and continued through the night into the wee hours of the morning when full distribution was completed. Thus healthful aliment was made available for millions of people each day. Many industries, too, which used fresh foodstuffs--restaurants, hotels, airlines, factory cafeterias, for example--were dependent upon the efficient working of this night-time industry.

But true to Biblical tradition and tenet, those who work in the Washington market area necessarily had to take one day off a week to relax and to allow physical regenerative processes to take over; and some, in addition, to observe their religious rites. This in no way interfered with other segments of the fresh foodstuffs market since stores for retail distribution were generally shut for one day, also. By common agreement that day was Sunday. Therefore the Washington Market was closed on Saturdays. But for Monday morning distributions, market activities resumed once again each Sunday afternoon, with the same consequent functions and routines as on all other days except Saturdays.

On March 6, 1967 nothing changed except locale. That day ended Washington Market on lower Manhattan. It became, as so many landmarks these days, a victim of urban renewal. The market moved to the New York City Terminal Market in the Bronx at Hunts Point. Because of lack of space, not all of the merchants there could be accommodated. Some, therefore, like defendant's firm, took up quarters and operated in adjacent areas. It was, nevertheless, still part of the now transplanted complex. But with the move to the Bronx from Manhattan, a new element was injected. According to defendant's counsel, it was not theretofore encountered while the market was in Manhattan.

For almost a century the Washington Market area became a beehive of activity on late Sunday afternoons after Saturday's lethargy, and never had any of the merchants been charged with having violated the Sabbath Laws (Penal Law, Art. 192). Yet, as soon as the reluctant move was made by the market to the Hunts Point area, the two police precincts which covered that police jurisdictional area immediately began the issuance of summonses for the alleged violation of such laws. Nine of these cases are before the Court now under the stipulated agreement that the decision rendered in one shall apply to the other eight in like manner and effect.

Besides the agreement that the police officers in each case observed the defendant's firm working at the place, times and Sundays specified in the respective complaints on perishable commodities, among which were potatoes, oranges, sprouts, apples, lemons and onions, ten photographs, agreed upon fairly to represent the nature and character of the warehouse and the neighborhood, were introduced into evidence. Unquestionably it is generally a commercial and not a residential neighborhood.

The People's contention is basic and uncomplicated. There is no argument, it is claimed, that the removing of 'produce from freight cars, bringing them into a warehouse, and rebagging them' on a Sunday is a violation of Sec. 2143 of the Penal Law by which '(a)ll 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'.

To support the People's view an 85 year old case is cited (Dinsmore v. The Board of Police, 12 Abb.N.Cas. 436, 445, 1882). That case draws a distinction between interstate and intrastate transactions involving perishable commodities, allowing the latter the legal benefit of police power regulations. Defendant, however, contends that since there has been Federal preemption for interstate shipments of this kind, no separation by local legislative fiat can be made so as to validate part of the same operation and make illegal the other part. This would include the Sabbath Laws. The People counter with the claim that if the defendant's goods enjoyed any interstate immunity at all, such immunity was frustrated by what they call 'a local food processing operation' in the repackaging of original shipments into smaller bags.

The Court prefers to put its decision on more modern and broader concepts than the theorizing of whether this Sabbath Law is an interference with interstate commerce. The problem transcends that arguable legal principle. The Sabbath Laws have a far greater impact on the progress necessary to people's lives today. For in 1882 the molders of legal thought could hardly have envisioned what today has become basic everyday requirements of life--like breathing and eating.

The statute is explicit. It is unambiguous. The words are clear. Disjunctive are the alternative excepted works: 'of necessity or charity'. This case is not affected by the latter. The issue involves the former. Does the defendant's operation become a work 'of necessity' within the purview of the statute so as to exempt defendant from the sanctions of Sabbath violations? It is here that the basic dichotomy arises. The People say that defendant is 'not employed in a work of necessity. Necessity per se connotes...