People v. Lathrop

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Lathrop

147 N.E.2d 722, 3 N.Y.2d 551, 170 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 1267

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 147 N.E.2d 722 (People v. Lathrop) 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. Lathrop, 147 N.E.2d 722, 3 N.Y.2d 551, 170 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 1267 (N.Y. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is ample evidence in the record to establish that section 54 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was substantially complied with by the placement of speed signs in such a manner and at such locations as to afford this defendant fair notice of the limits of speed within the village (see People v. Burmann, 307 N. Y. 871). Proof of the presence or absence of exit speed signs would have no bearing on defendant’s conviction for the speeding violation which was committed within the village limits.

The question as to the validity of that portion of the ordinance which provides that an offender shall be a disorderly person and that the violation of the ordinance shall constitute disorderly conduct need not be determined here since defendant was not found to be, nor punished as, a disorderly person. Nevertheless, assuming that such part of the ordinance was invalid as alleged, the portion of the ordinance under which defendant was convicted and fined is severable and enforcible despite the invalidity of the section referred to (see People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N. Y. 48, 60; Bronx Gas & Elec. Co. v. Maltbie, 268 N. Y. 278, 292; People v. Mancuso, 255 N. Y. 463, 473; Teeval Co. v. Stern, 301 N. Y. 346, 368).

[554]*554The judgment of the County Court, Onondaga County, should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

There is ample evidence in the record to establish that section 54 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was substantially complied with by the placement of speed signs in such a manner and at such locations as to afford this defendant fair notice of the limits of speed within the village (see People v. Burmann, 307 N. Y. 871). Proof of the presence or absence of exit speed signs would have no bearing on defendant’s conviction for the speeding violation which was committed within the village limits.

The question as to the validity of that portion of the ordinance which provides that an offender shall be a disorderly person and that the violation of the ordinance shall constitute disorderly conduct need not be determined here since defendant was not found to be, nor punished as, a disorderly person. Nevertheless, assuming that such part of the ordinance was invalid as alleged, the portion of the ordinance under which defendant was convicted and fined is severable and enforcible despite the invalidity of the section referred to (see People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N. Y. 48, 60; Bronx Gas & Elec. Co. v. Maltbie, 268 N. Y. 278, 292; People v. Mancuso, 255 N. Y. 463, 473; Teeval Co. v. Stern, 301 N. Y. 346, 368).

[554]*554The judgment of the County Court, Onondaga County, should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 N.E.2d 722, 3 N.Y.2d 551, 170 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lathrop-ny-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack