Case ID: so2d_85/html/0861-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MACLOU CORP., a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent.
    Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.
    Feb. 22, 1956.
    Rehearing Denied March 7, 1956.
    
      Morris Berick, Miami Beach, for petitioner.
    Joseph A. Wanick and Wilson C. Mc-gee, Miami Beach, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

By petition for certiorari the petitioner seeks reversal of an order of the Circuit Court affirming conviction of the petitioner in the Municipal Court of the City of Miami Beach.

The particular ordinance alleged to have been violated apparently was copied after Section 435-b of the Penal Law of the State of New York, McK.Consol.Laws, c. 40. The decisions of the New York courts are, therefore, especially applicable. Several New York cases involving substantially similar facts sustain the conviction of the petitioner by the Miami Beach Municipal Court. See People v. Leder, 258 App.Div. 879, 16 N.Y.S.2d 291; People v. Lewis, 138 App.Div. 673, 122 N.Y.S. 1025; People on Complaint of Waller v. Branfman, 147 Misc. 290, 263 N.Y.S. 629.

A careful examination of the record leads us to the conclusion that the Circuit Judge in the exercise of his powers as an appellate court had an adequate basis in the evidence as a whole to sustain his conclusion and he properly applied the law applicable in affirming the Municipal Court.

The petition is, therefore, denied.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.

On Petition for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

By petition for rehearing our attention is invited to the fact that in the original opinion we made reference to Section 435-a of the Penal Law of the State of New York. The correct reference is and should be Section 435-b of the Penal Law of the State of New York. The original opinion has been corrected accordingly. The authorities cited, however, are equally applicable to the case at bar, and the petition for rehearing is therefore

Denied.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.