Legal Opinion

People v. Cirruzzo

Nassau County District Court

Decided May 25, 1967PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBernard Tomson, J.

The defendant’s demurrer attacks section 555 of the Penal Law as unconstitutional and void, arguing that it is “vague and indefinite,” and “ has no ascertainable statutory standards.”

Those who feel that the telephone is a necessary adjunct to comfort do not intend its possession to constitute an open invitation to uninvited abuse. Unfortunately ■ this type of 1 ‘ trespass by telephone ’ ’ is all too common. The statute attacked is aimed at those who violate privacy by “ obscene ” telephone calls to women.

Section 555 reads: “Malicious telephone calls. A person who maliciously uses any…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. People v. LewisNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  5. People v. HarveyNew York Court of Appeals · 1954

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. KipfNebraska Supreme Court · 1990
  2. People v. DupontAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  3. People v. MiguezCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1990
  4. People v. TiffanyCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2001
  5. People v. AmalfiRochester City Court · 1988

4 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