People v. Zelkowitz

• Citation: 186 N.Y.S.2d 848,8 A.D.2d 161
• Parties: PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Irving ZELKOWITZ, Defendant-Appellant (five cases). PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Philip SINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 09 June 1959
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 848

186 N.Y.S.2d 848

8 A.D.2d 161

PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Irving ZELKOWITZ, Defendant-Appellant (five cases).

PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Philip SINGER, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 9, 1959.

David M. Markowitz, New York City, of counsel (Edward Wagreich, New York City, with him on the brief), for appellants.

Robert L. Ellis, New York City, of counsel (Seymour B. Quel, New York City, with him on the brief, Charles H. Tenney, Corp. Counsel, New York City, atty.), for respondent.

Before BREITEL, J. P., and M. M. FRANK, VALENTE, McNALLY and STEVENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants were convicted on their pleas of guilty to divers violations of the Multiple Dwelling Law and Sanitary Code of the City of New York in connection with the operation and maintenance of a large apartment house on the West Side of Manhattan. Defendant Zelkowitz was sentenced to cumulative fines of $1,050 and 30 days' imprisonment. Defendant Singer was sentenced to a fine of $500. In each case, as is the practice, if the fines were not paid, defendants were subject to imprisonment therefor. All the fines have been paid, and defendant Zelkowitz, after serving 5 days in the City Prison, was released on a certificate of reasonable doubt granted by a Justice of the Supreme Court.

The record, confirmed by the pleas of guilty, establishes that defendants were culpably responsible for serious violations, imperiling the health and safety of the tenants who lived in the building. The conditions were such as to reveal the deliberateness of their conduct. Under the circumstances the sentences are not excessive and should not be changed.

If that were all there was to the matter there would be no occasion for this Court to comment. However, a very distressing circumstance was present in connection with the progress of these matters in the trial court. There appeared in court members and leaders in the community, who expressed an interest in the case, but who did not otherwise have any connection with the building or relation with the defendants. They made strong representations to the court, not always relevant to the particular issues, as to how the matter should be handled and the necessity for the making of an example of these defendants. This was without their having any special familiarity with the issues in the particular case; or if they did, it was not developed in competent form. It was also evident that newspaper publicity,...