TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Cherry Lane Holding Corp.

The People of the State of New York v. Cherry Lane Holding Corp., Anthony Sonsini, President

People v. Cherry Lane Holding Corp., 65 Misc. 2d 805 (1971)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Suffolk County District Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
February 2, 1971
Judges
Colaneri
Citations
65 Misc. 2d 805318 N.Y.S.2d 1001971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1885

Opinion of the Court — Colaneri

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

Rockwell D. Colaneri, J.

The above matter was submitted to this court on an agreed statement of facts. The defendant is charged with a violation of article IV", section P-1.3, of the Revised and Codified Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Islip, in that the defendant “ did cause, allow and permit the erection of an ice making machine on the premises located at 117 East Main Street, East Islip, New York, without first obtaining a building permit from the Director of Building and Housing, as set forth in aforesaid Revised and Codified Zoning Ordinance, Town of Islip.”

A survey map of the property, as well as a photograph of the ice making machine, was submitted to the court. The survey map indicates that the ice making' machine is located on the southeast corner of the property 10.8 feet from the northerly side of East Main Street, also called Montauk Highway. The dimensions of the said machine are 5.78 feet by 5.85 feet, and the height, which the court estimates from the photograph, is approximately 6 feet. The photograph discloses that the said machine is a vending machine into which an individual *806 may place some coins and receive a bag of ice cubes in return.

Section P-1.3 of the Revised Ordinances provides: “No building or structure shall be erected or altered until a building and/or plumbing permit heretofore has been issued by the director. All applications for such permits shall be in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance and except upon written order of the Board of Appeals no building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any building or structure where said construction, alteration or use thereof would be in violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance. ’ ’

The question before the court and that which this court must determine is whether or not the ice making machine is realty to come within the purview of this ordinance. Is the ice making machine a. building or structure within the contemplation of the ordinance?

Article I of the Revised Ordinances contains definitions of building and structure:

“ Building — a structure having a roof supported by columns or wall, and when supported by a party wall without openings, it shall be deemed a separate building.”

“ Structure — an assembly of materials forming a construction of component structure parts for occupancy or use, including building. ’ ’

Another examination of the photograph discloses that the machine in its entirety is made out of metal, has a roof on it, but has no supporting columns. The walls are metal but are not walls in the sense as used in the building trades. It is one compact unit, and cannot be occupied by any person or animal. It also appears from the photograph that the machine is not attached, fixed or implanted in the ground in any way.

When this court queried the Assistant Town Attorney if gum ball machines and/or cigarette machines located outside of a building (a gasoline station for instance) would require a permit, the answer was “no.” From the evidence before this court, it appears to this court that the subject ice making machine is not realty, but is personalty and does not come within the purview of the ordinance. It is not a building or structure within the contemplation of the ordinance. The owner of the said machine could easily back a truck up to it, disconnect the electrical plug, lift the machine onto the truck and drive it away.

The defendant is found not guilty and the information is dismissed as a matter of law.

How later courts describe this case

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

1985: 11986: 119852026peak 1985 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bockis v. Kayser112 A.D.2d 222 (1985)
  2. People v. Fells133 Misc. 2d 341 (Rhinebeck Just. Ct. 1986)

Most recent

  1. People v. Fells133 Misc. 2d 341 (Rhinebeck Just. Ct. 1986)
  2. Bockis v. Kayser112 A.D.2d 222 (1985)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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