People v. Finkelstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Finkelstein

12 A.D.2d 457, 207 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7129

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.2d 457 (People v. Finkelstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State 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. Finkelstein, 12 A.D.2d 457, 207 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed. It is not clear that People v. Engel (7 N Y 2d 1002) determined that section 1141 of the Penal Law in its present form is unconstitutional. The decision is supportable by the absence in that case of any proof which would supply the element of scienter. In the absence of further clarification by the highest court of the State the statute may be construed to require scienter and thus satisfy the requirements laid down in Smith v. California (361 U. S. 147). People v. Shapiro (6 A D 2d 271) is not dispositive of the question before this court because the decision is not controlling in this Department and because the decision is not one in the highest court of the State (cf. Smith v. California, supra, p. 149, especially footnote 2). Assuming the validity of the statute the books in question come under its condemnation. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed. It is not clear that People v. Engel (7 N Y 2d 1002) determined that section 1141 of the Penal Law in its present form is unconstitutional. The decision is supportable by the absence in that case of any proof which would supply the element of scienter. In the absence of further clarification by the highest court of the State the statute may be construed to require scienter and thus satisfy the requirements laid down in Smith v. California (361 U. S. 147). People v. Shapiro (6 A D 2d 271) is not dispositive of the question before this court because the decision is not controlling in this Department and because the decision is not one in the highest court of the State (cf. Smith v. California, supra, p. 149, especially footnote 2). Assuming the validity of the statute the books in question come under its condemnation. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 457, 207 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-finkelstein-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack