#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Marvin Grandy, Defendant. The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Alphonza White, Defendant.

City Court of City of Long Beach, Nassau County,

September 18, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert Harris*for Marvin Grandy, defendant. *Jay Davis*for Alphonza White, defendant. *Denis Dillon, District Attorney (Lawrence Dugan*of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Jack Mackston, J.

Defendants, each charged with disorderly conduct, viola*495tions of subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 240.20 of the Penal Law, now move for dismissal upon the ground that those sections are unconstitutionally vague.

Subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 240.20 of the Penal Law provide as follows:

"A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

* * *

"2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

"3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture”.

There is a strong presumption that a statute, duly enacted is valid. *(People v Pagnotta,*25 NY2d 333.) A court of first impression is not bound to set aside a law as unconstitutional unless that conclusion is inescapable *(Incorporated Vil. of Lloyd Harbor v Town of Huntington,*143 NYS2d 797; *People v Elkin,*196 Misc 188) and demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt by the one asserting it. *(Matter of Van Berkel v Power,*16 NY2d 37; McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, § 150.) This, defendant has failed to do.

As was stated in *People v Berck*(32 NY2d 567, 569): "a penal law is void for vagueness when it '" 'fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden * * * ’ * * * 'ft is the rule that for validity a criminal statute must be informative on its face * * * and so explicit that’ all men subject to their penalties may know what acts it is their duty to avoid” ’ ”.

In interpreting penal statutes the words thereof are afforded their commonly accepted meaning. *(People v Glubo,*5 NY2d 461.)

In *International Harvester Co. v Kentucky*(234 US 216, 223) Justice Holmes stated: "We regard this decision as consistent with *Nash v. United States,*229 U. S. 373, 377, in which it was held that a criminal law is not unconstitutional merely because it throws upon men the risk of rightly estimating a matter of degree * * * It goes no further than to recognize that, as with negligence, between the two extremes of the obviously illegal and the plainly lawful there is a gradual approach and that the complexity of life makes it impossible to draw a line in advance without an artificial *496simplification that would be unjust.” (See, also, *People v Lenti,*44 Misc 2d 118.)

That more precise language may have been used in drawing a statute does not render it unconstitutional. *(United States v Petrillo,*332 US 1.)

It is the court’s belief that when reasonably viewed the subject sections are not ambiguous, and defendants have failed to establish the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the motions are denied. The matter is set down for conference September 27, 1978, at 9:30 a.m.