Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Irving Kahan, Respondent; The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Isadore Gottlieb, Respondent; The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. David Appelbaum and Abraham Fleesler, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1965-03-18
Citations: 15 N.Y.2d 311
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Irving Kahan, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Isadore Gottlieb, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. David Appelbaum and Abraham Fleesler, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 311–317

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Irving Kahan, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Isadore Gottlieb, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. David Appelbaum and Abraham Fleesler, Respondents.
Argued January 12, 1965;
decided March 18, 1965.
Aaron E. Koota, District Attorney (Harry Brodbar and Raymond J. Scanlan of counsel), for appellant in the first two above-entitled actions.
Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Michael Juviler and H. Richard Uviller of counsel), for appellant in the third above-entitled action.
Osmond K. Fraenkel for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The decision in People v. Bookcase, Inc. (14 N Y 2d 409) implied that a constitutionally valid statute defining obscenity in its impact on the young, as distinguished from obscenity in respect of adults, might emerge under careful draftsmanship. We find defects in draftsmanship of section 484--b of the Penal Law which seem to be remediable both in respect of its -substantive definitions and in respect of scienter as to contents and the age of the customer. (Cf. Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147.)
The orders should be affirmed.