People v. Cirruzzo
Nassau County District Court
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
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- People v. LewisNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- People v. HarveyNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. KipfNebraska Supreme Court · 1990
- People v. DupontAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- People v. MiguezCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1990
- People v. TiffanyCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2001
- People v. AmalfiRochester City Court · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.