People v. Weston's Shoppers City, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1972 |
| Citation | 281 N.E.2d 840,330 N.Y.S.2d 790,30 N.Y.2d 572 |
| Parties | , 281 N.E.2d 840 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. WESTON'S SHOPPERS CITY, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Albany County Court, 68 Misc.2d 217, 326 N.Y.S.2d 685. Arnold W. Proskin, Albany County Dist. Atty. (James F. Downs and John A. Williamson, Albany, on the brief), for plaintiff-respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. , filed Brief Pursuant to Executive Law, Consol.Laws, c. 18, § 71.
Adcook, Engel, McLaughlin & Doyle, Syracuse, for amicus curiae, Fay's Drug Co., Inc.
Ohlin, Damon, Morey, Sawyer & Moot, Buffalo (Richard E. Moot, Robert J. Hodgson, James M. Kieffer, Buffalo, of counsel), for amicus Curiae, W. T. Grant Co. The Justice Court, Town of Colonie, Tate, J., 64 Misc.2d 987, 317 N.Y.S.2d 812, dismissed two informations by sustaining demurrer on ground that the facts did not constitute crimes because statute prohibiting Sunday sales was unconstitutional. An appeal was taken.
The County Court reversed the judgments and the informations were remanded. It held that the exception to prohibition of Sunday sales dealing with souvenirs was not so vague as to be violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant store appealed.
In the Court of Appeals the People contended that the General Business Law, Consol.Laws, c. 20, § 9, is not unconstitutionally vague and is not a deprivation of due process or equal protection. The amicus curiae asserted that the forfeiture provisions of General Business Law, § 12, deprived defendant of its property without due process and constitute an excessive and inordinate punishment contary to the federal and state constitutions and that rather than serving as a deterrent to Sunday sales to protect the public, such section has been used between competitors as a club to gain favorable position in the market and threatens to embroil criminal courts in a variety of essentially economic controversies.
Order affirmed. Although the amicus curiae raises significant questions with respect to the general validity of legislation providing for a day of rest and religious observance, the case now before the court does not provide an appropriate vehicle to consider them.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Acme Markets, Inc.
...cases came to us, there was dissatisfaction with the uneven enforcement aspect of this statute. (E.g., People v. Weston's Shoppers City, 30 N.Y.2d 572, 330 N.Y.S.2d 790, 281 N.E.2d 840.) However, none of the prior cases in this court presented a record adequate to adjudication of the equal ......
-
People on Information of Moylan v. Kur
...to construe the holding in People v. Weston's Shoppers City, Inc., 68 Misc.2d 217, 326 N.Y.S.2d 685, affirmed 30 N.Y.2d 572, 330 N.Y.S.2d 790, 281 N.E.2d 840 (1972) was mentioned but not seriously argued on this appeal and in the opinion of this court cannot serve to change the clear provis......
-
People v. Abrahams
...equivocal terms, rejected a similar challenge to section 9 based on vagueness in the recent past (People v. Weston's Shoppers City, 30 N.Y.2d 572, 330 N.Y.S.2d 790, 281 N.E.2d 840). I do, however, concur in today's holding that the forfeitures provided for in section 12 are fatally ambiguou......
-
People v. Abrahams
...v. L. A. Witherill, Inc., 29 N.Y.2d 446, 449, 328 N.Y.S.2d 668, 670, 278 N.E.2d 905, 906; see, also, People v. Weston's Shopper's City, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 572, 330 N.Y.S.2d 790, 281 N.E.2d 840; People v. Genovese, 24 N.Y.2d 917, 301 N.Y.S.2d 982, 249 N.E.2d GLICKMAN and PITTONI, JJ., concur. H......