People v. Waldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Waldman

261 A.D. 1001, 26 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8505

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 1001 (People v. Waldman) 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. Waldman, 261 A.D. 1001, 26 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of a City Magistrate, holding a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, convicting the defendant of a violation of Penal Law, section 2147 (Sabbath law), unanimously affirmed. In our opinion, so far as the conceded act of the defendant in selling beer on Sunday is concerned, the same constituted a violation of the Penal Law, section 2147, which statute was not amended or repealed by the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law so far as it (§ 2147) contemplates and, in effect, prohibits defendant’s act. The learned City Magistrate’s decision presents unusual features. He finds that the defendant’s act was lawful, and then determines that he is guilty, so that there may be appellate review thereof, which review could not be had in the event of an acquittal. Both sides acquiesced in this practice, which we do not approve. The determination of guilt is supported by evidence and accords with the law. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Judgment of a City Magistrate, holding a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, convicting the defendant of a violation of Penal Law, section 2147 (Sabbath law), unanimously affirmed. In our opinion, so far as the conceded act of the defendant in selling beer on Sunday is concerned, the same constituted a violation of the Penal Law, section 2147, which statute was not amended or repealed by the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law so far as it (§ 2147) contemplates and, in effect, prohibits defendant’s act. The learned City Magistrate’s decision presents unusual features. He finds that the defendant’s act was lawful, and then determines that he is guilty, so that there may be appellate review thereof, which review could not be had in the event of an acquittal. Both sides acquiesced in this practice, which we do not approve. The determination of guilt is supported by evidence and accords with the law. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1001, 26 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-waldman-nyappdiv-1941.