Fine v. Commissioner of Department of Consumer Affairs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fine v. Commissioner of Department of Consumer Affairs

168 A.D.2d 285

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 11, 1990·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered June 21, 1989, which, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, seeking a declaration that General Business Law § 11 is unconstitutional, for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a Jewish civil process server who observes a Saturday Sabbath, challenged the constitutionality of General Business Law § 11 which prohibits the service of process on Sunday with specified exceptions. Section 11 of the General Business Law is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion, nor does it violate the equal protection clauses of our State and Federal Constitutions. The statute serves a legitimate [286] State objective in providing a day of rest for its citizens and neither forces plaintiff to observe Sunday Sabbath nor hinders him from observing his own Sabbath (Braunfeld v Brown, 366 US 599, reh denied 368 US 869; Matter of Shattenkirk v Finnerty, 97 AD2d 51, affd 62 NY2d 949). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered June 21, 1989, which, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, seeking a declaration that General Business Law § 11 is unconstitutional, for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a Jewish civil process server who observes a Saturday Sabbath, challenged the constitutionality of General Business Law § 11 which prohibits the service of process on Sunday with specified exceptions. Section 11 of the General Business Law is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion, nor does it violate the equal protection clauses of our State and Federal Constitutions. The statute serves a legitimate [286] State objective in providing a day of rest for its citizens and neither forces plaintiff to observe Sunday Sabbath nor hinders him from observing his own Sabbath (Braunfeld v Brown, 366 US 599, reh denied 368 US 869; Matter of Shattenkirk v Finnerty, 97 AD2d 51, affd 62 NY2d 949). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Rubin, JJ.

Fine v. Commissioner of Department of Consumer Affairs, 168 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

168 A.D.2d 285 (Fine v. Commissioner of Department of Consumer Affairs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related