TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Gwyer

The People of the State of New York v. Arthur Gwyer

People v. Gwyer, 7 A.D.2d 711 (1958)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 2, 1958
Citations
7 A.D.2d 711179 N.Y.S.2d 9871958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4062

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the complaint dismissed. The defendant is charged with offering for sale and causing to be sold services of his laundromat on Sunday, in violation of section 2147 of the Penal Law. This section is entitled “Public traffic on Sunday.” By its introductory language “All manner of public selling or offering for sale of any property upon Sunday is prohibited”. Thereafter, certain exceptions are enumerated. In People v. Dunford ( 207 N. Y. 17 [1912]), decided when the statute was much as it is today, though not as extensive in the exceptions noted, the court observed “ The word ‘ traffic ’ has the popular meaning of an exchange, or a passing of goods, or commodities, for an equivalent in goods, or money” (p. 20). “It seems to be intended by this legislation to declare that act a nuisance, which disturbs the public rest on Sunday, or tends to profane the day by any unnecessary, or noisy, conduct” (p. 21). (Cf. People v. Friedman, 302 N. Y. 75 .) The prohibition of section 2147 of the Penal Law referred to and was designed to include tangible personal property, not services. Nor does the fact that an automatic vending machine on the premises afforded prospective users of the laundromat an opportunity to obtain soap and bleach by the deposit of coins, independent of any participation by the defendant, bring it within the language of the section. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, M. M. Frank, Valente, and Stevens, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 11975: 21976: 119592026peak 1975 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hess v. State1975 OK CR 97, 536 P.2d 366
  2. People v. Rubenstein17 Misc. 2d 10 (1959)
  3. People v. Abrahams353 N.E.2d 574 (N.Y. 1976) · Concurrence
  4. Commonwealth v. HILL346 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)

Most recent

  1. People v. Abrahams353 N.E.2d 574 (N.Y. 1976) · Concurrence
  2. Commonwealth v. HILL346 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)
  3. Hess v. State1975 OK CR 97, 536 P.2d 366
  4. People v. Rubenstein17 Misc. 2d 10 (1959)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Friedman, 96 N.E.2d 184 (N.Y. 1950) 97
People v. Dunford, 100 N.E. 433 (N.Y. 1912) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list