People v. Briary Improvement Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Briary Improvement Corp.

77 Misc. 2d 797, 357 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1232

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 19, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 77 Misc. 2d 797 (People v. Briary Improvement Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Briary Improvement Corp., 77 Misc. 2d 797, 357 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and case remanded for resentencing in accordance with and within the limits provided by section 42 of the Second Class Cities Law.

The complaint charged defendant with violating section 107-45 of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Yonkers on a specific day and on 107 successive days thereafter. After pleading guilty to violating the ordinance, defendant was sentenced to pay a fine in the sum of $25 for each of the 108 days.

[798]*798■Since it appears that section 42 of the Second Class Cities Law does not authorize a second class city to adopt an ordinance which provides cumulative penalties for one continuing violation, section 107-107 of the municipality’s ordinance which provides such penalty and pursuant to which the defendant was sentenced for each and every day the violation continued, is invalid. (See Incorporated Vill. of Mill Neck v. Fronsdal, 39 A D 2d 549; Rooney v. City of Long Beach, 42 A D 2d 34.)

Concur — Glickman, P. J., Pittoni and Farley, JJ.

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

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and case remanded for resentencing in accordance with and within the limits provided by section 42 of the Second Class Cities Law.

The complaint charged defendant with violating section 107-45 of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Yonkers on a specific day and on 107 successive days thereafter. After pleading guilty to violating the ordinance, defendant was sentenced to pay a fine in the sum of $25 for each of the 108 days.

[798]*798■Since it appears that section 42 of the Second Class Cities Law does not authorize a second class city to adopt an ordinance which provides cumulative penalties for one continuing violation, section 107-107 of the municipality’s ordinance which provides such penalty and pursuant to which the defendant was sentenced for each and every day the violation continued, is invalid. (See Incorporated Vill. of Mill Neck v. Fronsdal, 39 A D 2d 549; Rooney v. City of Long Beach, 42 A D 2d 34.)

Concur — Glickman, P. J., Pittoni and Farley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 Misc. 2d 797, 357 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-briary-improvement-corp-nyappterm-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack