People v. One 1976 Ford Van

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. One 1976 Ford Van

59 A.D.2d 1045, 399 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14331

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 1045 (People v. One 1976 Ford Van) 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. One 1976 Ford Van, 59 A.D.2d 1045, 399 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The definition of obscenity set forth in subdivision 9 of section 410.00 of the Penal Law is clearly unconstitutional (see Miller v California, 413 US 15, 25; Plaza Dev. Corp. v Vogt, 52 AD2d 396). Since the record does not support the People’s theory that the materials contained in the vehicle were "judicially declared to be obscene” pursuant to the standards set forth in section 235.00 of the Penal Law rather than subdivision 9 of section 410.00 of the Penal Law, there is no need to determine whether subdivision 9 is severable from the remainder of the statute. (Appeal from order of Oneida Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Dillon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The definition of obscenity set forth in subdivision 9 of section 410.00 of the Penal Law is clearly unconstitutional (see Miller v California, 413 US 15, 25; Plaza Dev. Corp. v Vogt, 52 AD2d 396). Since the record does not support the People’s theory that the materials contained in the vehicle were "judicially declared to be obscene” pursuant to the standards set forth in section 235.00 of the Penal Law rather than subdivision 9 of section 410.00 of the Penal Law, there is no need to determine whether subdivision 9 is severable from the remainder of the statute. (Appeal from order of Oneida Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Dillon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 1045, 399 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-one-1976-ford-van-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack