People v. Parry

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parry

82 Misc. 2d 21, 370 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2548

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 1, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 Misc. 2d 21 (People v. Parry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Parry, 82 Misc. 2d 21, 370 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, complaint reinstated and case remitted for further proceedings.

The People appeal from an order which dismissed the complaint upon the grounds that the rule expressed in sections 150.1 (subd [a], par [38]) and 151.31 of the Rules and Regulations of the East Hudson Parkway Authority (21 NYCRR 150.1 [a] [38], 151.31) was invalid and that its application to defendant would have been unconstitutional. The complaint charged defendant with operating a school bus on a parkway in violation of said rule.

Although it may or may not be desirable to permit school buses or vans such as defendant’s on the parkways so that the traveling time of students will be shortened, the decision in this regard must be left to the administrative agency expressly empowered by the Legislature to weigh such public interests (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1630, subd 3). We do not find the subject rule to be invalid or unconstitutional on its [22]*22face or in its application to defendant (see People v Williams, 42 Misc 2d 767, 769; People v Apostle, 30 Misc 2d 55, 58, 59).

Concur: Hogan, P. J., Glickman and Gagliardi, JJ.

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

Memorandum. Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, complaint reinstated and case remitted for further proceedings.

The People appeal from an order which dismissed the complaint upon the grounds that the rule expressed in sections 150.1 (subd [a], par [38]) and 151.31 of the Rules and Regulations of the East Hudson Parkway Authority (21 NYCRR 150.1 [a] [38], 151.31) was invalid and that its application to defendant would have been unconstitutional. The complaint charged defendant with operating a school bus on a parkway in violation of said rule.

Although it may or may not be desirable to permit school buses or vans such as defendant’s on the parkways so that the traveling time of students will be shortened, the decision in this regard must be left to the administrative agency expressly empowered by the Legislature to weigh such public interests (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1630, subd 3). We do not find the subject rule to be invalid or unconstitutional on its [22]*22face or in its application to defendant (see People v Williams, 42 Misc 2d 767, 769; People v Apostle, 30 Misc 2d 55, 58, 59).

Concur: Hogan, P. J., Glickman and Gagliardi, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Misc. 2d 21, 370 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1975 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parry-nyappterm-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack