Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Anonymous v. City of Rochester

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 9, 2009Published

1Concurrence

Graffeo, J. (concurring).

I vote to affirm because I conclude that the City of Rochester’s juvenile curfew ordinance must be invalidated since the law conflicts, in part, with the Family Court Act. I further believe that the objectionable portion of the curfew law cannot be severed from the remainder of the ordinance and, consequently, the ordinance is invalid in its entirety.

Rochester’s juvenile curfew ordinance specifies that children under the age of 17 cannot be in a public place between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. on Friday and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. People Ex Rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. KnappNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  3. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Town of Red HookNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. New York State Club Ass'n v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Albany Area Builders Ass'n v. Town of GuilderlandNew York Court of Appeals · 1989

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API