Metallic Flowers, Inc. v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Metallic Flowers, Inc. v. City of New York

157 N.E.2d 170, 5 N.Y.2d 246, 183 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1959 N.Y. LEXIS 1520

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 5, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 N.E.2d 170 (Metallic Flowers, Inc. v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metallic Flowers, Inc. v. City of New York, 157 N.E.2d 170, 5 N.Y.2d 246, 183 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1959 N.Y. LEXIS 1520 (N.Y. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In March of 1955 two Inspectors of the Board of Health of the City of New York seized, pursuant to article 8 of the Sanitary Code of the City of New York, a number of plaintiff’s “Electro-Therapeutic Bracelets” together with all accompanying literature. The basis for the seizure was that all circulars, devices and placards were misbranded and, so, liable to be seized by the Board of Health as such. The seizure was accomplished under the claimed authority of section 135 of the Sanitary Code and was carried out without any prior notice to the plaintiff and without any kind of a hearing.

We construe section 135 of the. Sanitary Code as. requiring that any condemnation proceeding taken by defendants under the Sanitary Code accord with the procedure specified in a like case prosecuted under the Education Law (§ 6815). Until those safeguards afforded plaintiff by law are observed, we may not pass upon the basic question of whether the plaintiff’s bracelet was misbranded. The seizure here having been in violation of those procedural safeguards, the plaintiff is entitled to a return of its property. The defendants and other appropriate authorities, if any, are free, of course, to initiate any proper proceedings or prosecutions, if they so choose.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified by affirming so much thereof as dismisses that part of plaintiff’s complaint by which it seeks an injunction against defendants [250]*250and by reversing so much thereof as dismisses that part of plaintiff’s complaint by which it seeks a return of the property which has been seized by defendants.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgment modified in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

In March of 1955 two Inspectors of the Board of Health of the City of New York seized, pursuant to article 8 of the Sanitary Code of the City of New York, a number of plaintiff’s “Electro-Therapeutic Bracelets” together with all accompanying literature. The basis for the seizure was that all circulars, devices and placards were misbranded and, so, liable to be seized by the Board of Health as such. The seizure was accomplished under the claimed authority of section 135 of the Sanitary Code and was carried out without any prior notice to the plaintiff and without any kind of a hearing.

We construe section 135 of the. Sanitary Code as. requiring that any condemnation proceeding taken by defendants under the Sanitary Code accord with the procedure specified in a like case prosecuted under the Education Law (§ 6815). Until those safeguards afforded plaintiff by law are observed, we may not pass upon the basic question of whether the plaintiff’s bracelet was misbranded. The seizure here having been in violation of those procedural safeguards, the plaintiff is entitled to a return of its property. The defendants and other appropriate authorities, if any, are free, of course, to initiate any proper proceedings or prosecutions, if they so choose.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified by affirming so much thereof as dismisses that part of plaintiff’s complaint by which it seeks an injunction against defendants [250]*250and by reversing so much thereof as dismisses that part of plaintiff’s complaint by which it seeks a return of the property which has been seized by defendants.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgment modified in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.E.2d 170, 5 N.Y.2d 246, 183 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1959 N.Y. LEXIS 1520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metallic-flowers-inc-v-city-of-new-york-ny-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack