People v. Haff

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Haff

424 N.E.2d 552, 53 N.Y.2d 997, 441 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2532

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 4, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 424 N.E.2d 552 (People v. Haff) 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

People v. Haff, 424 N.E.2d 552, 53 N.Y.2d 997, 441 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2532 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

*999 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Subdivision 3 of section 107 of the Civil Service Law is a valid regulation of partisan political conduct. What it proscribes is the giving within a building occupied for governmental purposes by a public officer to his subordinates of notice that they are to collect- and-receive political contributions (People v Haff, 47 NY2d 695). Limited as to place, its regulation of speech is reasonable (Civil Serv. Comm. v Letter Carriers, 413 US 548; Broadrick v Oklahoma, 413 US 601; Ex Parte Curtis, 106 US 371). Nor, in view of the commonly understood meaning of the words in which it is phrased, can it be held void for vagueness (Broadrick v Oklahoma, supra, at pp 607-608).

The evidence of defendant’s guilt was sufficient since as People v Haff (supra) makes clear the section does not require that coercive language be used, and since there was nonaccomplice testimony fairly tending to connect defendant with the commission of the crime (People v Glasper, 52 NY2d 970).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

*999 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Subdivision 3 of section 107 of the Civil Service Law is a valid regulation of partisan political conduct. What it proscribes is the giving within a building occupied for governmental purposes by a public officer to his subordinates of notice that they are to collect- and-receive political contributions (People v Haff, 47 NY2d 695). Limited as to place, its regulation of speech is reasonable (Civil Serv. Comm. v Letter Carriers, 413 US 548; Broadrick v Oklahoma, 413 US 601; Ex Parte Curtis, 106 US 371). Nor, in view of the commonly understood meaning of the words in which it is phrased, can it be held void for vagueness (Broadrick v Oklahoma, supra, at pp 607-608).

The evidence of defendant’s guilt was sufficient since as People v Haff (supra) makes clear the section does not require that coercive language be used, and since there was nonaccomplice testimony fairly tending to connect defendant with the commission of the crime (People v Glasper, 52 NY2d 970).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 N.E.2d 552, 53 N.Y.2d 997, 441 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-haff-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack