Trans-Lux Distributing Corp. v. Board of Regents of University of State of New York

• Decision Date: 30 April 1964
• Docket Number: TRANS-LUX
• Citation: 14 N.Y.2d 722,250 N.Y.S.2d 67
• Parties: , 199 N.E.2d 165 Application ofDISTRIBUTING CORP., Respondent, for an order, etc. v. The BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Apprllant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 67

250 N.Y.S.2d 67

14 N.Y.2d 722, 199 N.E.2d 165

Application of TRANS-LUX DISTRIBUTING CORP., Respondent, for an order, etc. v. The BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Apprllant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 30, 1964.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 19 A.D.2d 937, 244 N.Y.S.2d 333.

Petitioner brought a proceeding under the Civil Practice Act, § 1283 et seq., to annul a determination of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York refusing a license for the exhibition in the state of a moving picture film 'A Stranger Knocks' and to compel the Board of Regents to issue a license.

The Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County, transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division annulled the determination of the Board of Regents and remitted the matter with direction to license the film. Herlihy, J., dissented.

The Board of Regents appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, 14 N.Y.2d 88, 248 N.Y.S.2d 857, 198 N.E.2d 242, reversed the order, reinstated the determination of the Board of Regents, and held that scenes portraying sexual relations were obscene within the Education Law. Dye, Fuld, and Van Voorhis, JJ., dissented.

Motion was made in the Court of Appeals to amend the remittitur.

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon certain questions under the Constitution and laws of the United States, viz.: Respondent contended that the licensing provisions of section 122 of the Education Law, Consol.Laws, c. 16, violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; that the film here involved could not be denied a license under section 122 without violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and that section 122 violates section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Court of Appeals held that there were no such violations of Federal law for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court and in the concurring opinions.