N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART Specific Offenses / TITLE Offenses Against Public Health and Morals / ARTICLE Obscenity and Related Offenses
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 235.15 (2026)

Obscenity or disseminating indecent material to minors in the second degree; defense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 235.15  Obscenity or disseminating indecent material to minors in the
second degree; defense.
  1. In any prosecution for obscenity, or disseminating indecent
material to minors in the second degree in violation of subdivision
three of section 235.21 of this article, it is an affirmative defense
that the persons to whom allegedly obscene  or indecent material was
disseminated, or the audience to an allegedly obscene performance,
consisted of persons or institutions having scientific, educational,
governmental or other similar justification for possessing,
disseminating or viewing the same.
  2.  In any prosecution for obscenity, it is an affirmative defense
that the person so charged was a motion picture projectionist, stage
employee or spotlight operator, cashier, doorman, usher, candy stand
attendant, porter or in any other non-managerial or non-supervisory
capacity in a motion picture theatre; provided he has no financial
interest, other than his employment, which employment does not encompass
compensation based upon any proportion of the gross receipts, in the
promotion of obscene material for sale, rental or exhibition or in the
promotion, presentation or direction of any obscene performance, or is
in any way responsible for acquiring obscene material for sale, rental
or exhibition.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1981–2014 · leading case: People v. Fraser, 752 N.E.2d 244 (N.Y. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Fraser, 752 N.E.2d 244 (N.Y. 2001). · cites it 5× “1 Before trial the People made a motion to preclude an affirmative defense (based on scientific use) pursuant to Penal Law § 235.15 (1), and defendant moved to assert the defense at trial.”
People v. Fraser, 264 A.D.2d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · cites it 5× “00 (4), and that County Court erred in denying his requests to charge the affirmative defense set forth in Penal Law § 235.15 (1) and the justification defense set forth in Penal Law § 15.”
Hatch v. Superior Court, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “” The New York statute defined harmful matter in terms similar to the California definition (compare N.Y. Pen. Law § 235.20 , subd.”
400 E. Baltimore Street, Inc. v. State, 431 A.2d 682 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1981). “§ 30-37-5 (D); N.Y. Penal Law § 235.15 (Consol.); N.C. Gen.”
People v. Sengupta, 121 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Although a phrase such as “other instrument” is “susceptible of a wide interpretation,” under the ejusdem generis canon of construction, it “becomes one limited in its effect by the specific words which precede it” (People v Illardo, 48 NY2d 408, 416 [1979] [construing phrase…”
People v. Allies Boulevard Book Store, Inc., 130 Misc. 2d 556 (1985). “The part of the law omitted from the Grand Jury instructions provides the following (Penal Law § 235.15 [1]): "§ 235.15 Obscenity; defense.”
People v. Allies Boulevard Book Store, Inc., 125 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). · cites it 3× “In instructing the Grand Jury on the law, however, the prosecutor did not discuss the affirmative defense to obscenity contained in Penal Law § 235.15 (1), which states as follows: "In any prosecution for obscenity, it is an affirmative defense that the persons to whom allegedly…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.