People v. Matherson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Matherson

319 N.E.2d 708, 35 N.Y.2d 694, 361 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1302

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 8, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 319 N.E.2d 708 (People v. Matherson) 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. Matherson, 319 N.E.2d 708, 35 N.Y.2d 694, 361 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1302 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order appealed from should be reversed. On the present record, there is insufficient evidence that Mather-son, as an individual, is the “ person ” upon whom responsibility for noise violations is placed by the Town of Babylon Code. Certainly, the licensee, the Oak Beach Inn Corporation, might be held accountable for violations (Babylon Code, § 4-65). However, the only connection established at trial between Matherson and the violations, that he was the sole shareholder and principal officer of the licensee corporation, is insufficient to establish his personal accountability under the ordinance. Since the convictions must be reversed on this ground, we do not reach defendant’s other arguments, and specifically do not pass upon the question of the constitutionality of the instant noise ordinance.

[696]*696Chief Judge Bbeitel and Judges Gabbielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin, Stevens and Wither

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

Memorandum. The order appealed from should be reversed. On the present record, there is insufficient evidence that Mather-son, as an individual, is the “ person ” upon whom responsibility for noise violations is placed by the Town of Babylon Code. Certainly, the licensee, the Oak Beach Inn Corporation, might be held accountable for violations (Babylon Code, § 4-65). However, the only connection established at trial between Matherson and the violations, that he was the sole shareholder and principal officer of the licensee corporation, is insufficient to establish his personal accountability under the ordinance. Since the convictions must be reversed on this ground, we do not reach defendant’s other arguments, and specifically do not pass upon the question of the constitutionality of the instant noise ordinance.

[696]*696Chief Judge Bbeitel and Judges Gabbielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin, Stevens and Wither

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 N.E.2d 708, 35 N.Y.2d 694, 361 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-matherson-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack