People v. Federico

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Federico

91 Misc. 2d 131, 397 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2256

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 21, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 Misc. 2d 131 (People v. Federico) 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. Federico, 91 Misc. 2d 131, 397 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt of violating section 1 of article V of the Code of Ordinances of the Village of Ocean Beach in that he allowed an excursion boat to land in the Village of Ocean Beach was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Although defendant has questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance, i.e., that it is prohibitory rather than regulatory (see 9 NY Jur, Constitutional Law, § 196) and contends that it has been enforced in a discriminatory manner, defendant has failed to raise these issues in the proper manner (CPL 170.30, subd 1, par [a]; subd 2, 170.35 (subd 1, par [c]); 255.20, subd 3; People v Sullivan, 87 Misc 2d 254; People v Goodman, 31 NY2d 262, 268, 269). The fact that this court is unable to entertain said issues on this appeal does not leave defendant without a remedy. He may, if he be so advised, move pursuant to CPL 440.10 (subd 1, par [h]) to vacate the judgment on the [132]*132ground that it was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of this State or the United States.

Concur: Farley, P. J., Glickman and Gagliardi, JJ.

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

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt of violating section 1 of article V of the Code of Ordinances of the Village of Ocean Beach in that he allowed an excursion boat to land in the Village of Ocean Beach was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Although defendant has questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance, i.e., that it is prohibitory rather than regulatory (see 9 NY Jur, Constitutional Law, § 196) and contends that it has been enforced in a discriminatory manner, defendant has failed to raise these issues in the proper manner (CPL 170.30, subd 1, par [a]; subd 2, 170.35 (subd 1, par [c]); 255.20, subd 3; People v Sullivan, 87 Misc 2d 254; People v Goodman, 31 NY2d 262, 268, 269). The fact that this court is unable to entertain said issues on this appeal does not leave defendant without a remedy. He may, if he be so advised, move pursuant to CPL 440.10 (subd 1, par [h]) to vacate the judgment on the [132]*132ground that it was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of this State or the United States.

Concur: Farley, P. J., Glickman and Gagliardi, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 Misc. 2d 131, 397 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1977 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-federico-nyappterm-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack