Legal Opinion

People v. Vendome Service Corp.

New York City Magistrates' Court

Decided February 5, 1942PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Aurelio, C. M.

The facts are conceded. Defendant admits it has not secured the permit required under section C19-64.0 (garage permit) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and contends that neither the State nor the city has any jurisdiction over the premises because the United States owns *1040the premises and the defendant occupies the same under a lease from thé government.

The defendant was previously convicted in this court on the same charge on May 19, 1939. (See opinion of the magistrate in 171 Misc. 191.) The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Part of the Court of Special…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Palmer v. BarrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. People v. Vendome Service, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1940
  3. People v. Vendome Service, Inc.New York Court of Special Session · 1940
  4. People v. Vendome Service, Inc.New York City Magistrates' Court · 1939

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. Vendome Service, Inc.New York Court of Special Session · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API