community standard in New York

1993Moreover, there is a State-wide component in obscenity regulation that does not arise with drug paraphernalia, since the community standard to be applied in obscenity prosecutions is a State-wide one and not a local one (see, People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389 ; People v Heller, 33 NY2d 314 , cert denied sub nom.

1978The contention of the dissenter that an instruction to a Grand Jury prescribing a "community” rather than a "State-wide” standard could not, under, inter alia, People v Heller (supra) invalidate an indictment otherwise based on legally sufficient evidence is belied by Judge Gabrielli’s strong admonition in Heller , on behalf of the whole court (p 322): "We take pains to here declare that in determining whether any material is patently offensive or obscene, the community standard to be applied is a 'state standard’.” (Emphasis supplied.) Therefore, since the Assistant District Attorney did not

1978(Miller v California, 413 US 15, 33 , supra.) In People v Heller ( 33 NY2d 314, 323 ) the New York Court of Appeals declared that in determining whether any material is patently offensive or obscene, the community standard to be applied is a State standard as opposed to the utilizing of either a national or a local standard.

1977The use of a state as the community whose standard is to be used by the jury has been upheld by both the Court of Appeals (People v Heller, 33 NY2d 314 , supra [which concerned New York State]) and the Supreme Court of the United States (see Miller v California, 413 US 15 , supra; Hamling v United States, 418 US 87 ; Kaplan v California, supra).

1961Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 , supra].) Indeed, two authoritative writers in the field have concluded that, “ Although the whole subject of obscenity censorship hinges upon the unproved assumption that ‘ obscene ’ literature is a significant factor in causing sexual deviation from the community standard, no report can be found of a single effort at genuine research to test this assumption by singling out as a factor for study the effect of sex literature upon sexual behaviour ”.

1959The verdict of two eminent scholars on this point is as follows: ' Although the whole structure of obscenity censorship hinges upon the improved assumption that “ obscene ” literature is a significant factor in causing sexual deviation from the community standard, no report can be found of a single effort at genuine research to test this assumption by singling out as factor for study the effect of sex literature upon sex conduct.’ Indeed, for an undetermined number of individuals, the writing or reading of obscenity may be a substitute for rather than a stimulus to physical sexuality.” Both v.

1914(Penal Law, §§ 2140, 2143, 2144, 2146.) Primarily Sabbath regulations have to do with “serious interruptions of the repose and religious liberty, of the community.” (Penal Law, § 2140.) Their purpose is “to secure to the community the privilege of undisturbed worship, and to the day itself that outward respect and observance which may be deemed essential to the peace and good order of society.” (Lindemnuller v. People, 33 Barb. 548, 567 .) The Legislature “ has the right to regulate its observance as a civil and political institution.” (People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 203 ; People v. Moses, 1

1896A thing may be lawful and yet not laudable. “ In the state of Hew York the Sabbath exists as a day of rest by the common law, and without the necessity of legislative action to establish it; and may be protected from desecration by such laws, as the legislature, in its wisdom, may deem necessary to secure to the community the privilege of undisturbed worship, and to the day itself that outward respect and observance which may be deemed essential tó the peace and good order of. society, and to preserve religion and its ordinances from open .reviling and contempt.” Lindenmuller v. People, 33 Bar

2016Under these confusing circumstances, therefore, the community has a strong interest in obtaining a final resolution of the defendant’s guilt or lack of guilt and a dismissal of the indictment at this juncture would undermine the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system (see People v Keith R., 95 AD3d 65 [1st Dept 2012]). (h) The Impact of a Dismissal on the Safety or Welfare of the Community The defendant does not address this criterion.

2007(People v Cantor, 36 NY2d at 113 .) At bar, the circumstances faced by respondent were that her parquet wood floor was in a dangerously deteriorated condition to the point where she had tripped several times on loose floor boards and the condition had been found to be in violation of the Housing Maintenance Code.

1995In rebuttal, the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that raised a material issue of fact, and the court thus erred in denying Community’s motion (see, e.g., Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 ; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 ).

1995In rebuttal, the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that raised a material issue of fact, and the court thus erred in denying Community’s motion (see, e.g., Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 ; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 ).

1995In rebuttal, the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that raised a material issue of fact, and the court thus erred in denying Community’s motion (see, e.g., Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 ; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 ).

1993Buckley v New York, 418 US 944 ).

1993Moreover, there is a State-wide component in obscenity regulation that does not arise with drug paraphernalia, since the community standard to be applied in obscenity prosecutions is a State-wide one and not a local one (see, People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389 ; People v Heller, 33 NY2d 314 , cert denied sub nom.

1986Co., 328 US 217, 220 ; People v Shedrick, 104 AD2d 263, 273 , affd 66 NY2d 1015 ).

1986Co., 328 US 217, 220 ; People v Shedrick, 104 AD2d 263, 273 , affd 66 NY2d 1015 ).

1986Co., 328 US 217, 220 ; People v Shedrick, 104 AD2d 263, 273 , affd 66 NY2d 1015 ).

1983The principles governing establishment of .a claim that a petit jury is not drawn from a fair cross section of the community in violation of the Sixth Amendment are the same for showing lack of a fair cross section in Grand Juries in violation of the due process clause (Peters v Kiff, 407 US 493,495-496 , supra; see Duren v Missouri, 439 US 357, 358-359 , supra; Taylor v Louisiana, 419 US 522, 528, 538 , supra; People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36 , 42-43).

1977The use of a state as the community whose standard is to be used by the jury has been upheld by both the Court of Appeals (People v Heller, 33 NY2d 314 , supra [which concerned New York State]) and the Supreme Court of the United States (see Miller v California, 413 US 15 , supra; Hamling v United States, 418 US 87 ; Kaplan v California, supra).

1975The New York Court of Appeals, in People v Heller ( 33 NY2d 314 ), held that a contemporary State-wide community standard must be the measure of a given film, and thereafter the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decreed in People v Nitke ( 45 AD2d 543, 545 ) that the standard be given retroactive effect, to the extent that "when the appellate process has not been exhausted, the appellate court is generally required to apply the law as it exists at the time of appeal.” In the present case the jury was instructed: "To establish the customary limits of candor, you must rely upon the contempo

1975(See, also, People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224, 228 .) This court will, therefore, proceed to consider the merits of defendant’s claim that the jury below was not properly instructed, especially with reference to the community standard by which the film, Deep Throat, was to be judged.

1959“But, in light of our holding that obscenity is not protected speech, the complete answer to this argument is in the holding of this Court in Beauharnais v. Illinois, supra, at p. 266: 1 Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech, it is unnecessary, either for us or for the State courts, to consider the issues behind the phrase “ clear and present danger.” Certainly no one would contend that obscene speech, for example, may be punished only upon a showing of Such circumstances.

1949It seems to us that if a community can bar from its streets all raucously noisy advertising devices (Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 ) it may stop defendant from starting religious wars on New York’s teeming thoroughfares.