People v. Knopfer

New York City Court of Special Sessions

People v. Knopfer

192 Misc. 521, 81 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2733

CourtNew York City Court of Special Sessions

DecidedJune 28, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 192 Misc. 521 (People v. Knopfer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Court of Special Sessions primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Knopfer, 192 Misc. 521, 81 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2733 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of section B32-5.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. In our opinion the facts proved do not bring the case within the prohibition contained in that section which, in precise and unequivocal terms, is directed only against the licensee, his officers or employees. Respondent concedes that appellant was actually the employee of another, not the licensee, but maintains that he was, in legal contemplation, also the employee of the licensee. Any interpretation of the statute to bring about such result would have no substantial basis in fact or in law. The statute is criminal in nature and the penalty for a violation is very serious. It should not and cannot property be construed to embrace a situation not clearly within its terms. The remedy must be sought by legislative enactment.

DeLttca, P. J., Cooper and DiGiovanna, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of section B32-5.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. In our opinion the facts proved do not bring the case within the prohibition contained in that section which, in precise and unequivocal terms, is directed only against the licensee, his officers or employees. Respondent concedes that appellant was actually the employee of another, not the licensee, but maintains that he was, in legal contemplation, also the employee of the licensee. Any interpretation of the statute to bring about such result would have no substantial basis in fact or in law. The statute is criminal in nature and the penalty for a violation is very serious. It should not and cannot property be construed to embrace a situation not clearly within its terms. The remedy must be sought by legislative enactment.

DeLttca, P. J., Cooper and DiGiovanna, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 Misc. 521, 81 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-knopfer-nynycspecsess-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack