Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mature Enterprises, Inc., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1974-01-14
Citations: 76 Misc. 2d 660
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mature Enterprises, Inc., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mature Enterprises, Inc., Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
January 14, 1974.
Kassner <& Detsky (Herbert S. Kassner of counsel), for appellant. Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Lewis R. Friedman and Arthur Weinstein of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Upon review of the film, " Deep Throat ", we find it constitutionally obscene under both the statutory and decisional guidelines (Penal Law, § 235.00; Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49; Peo ple v. Heller, 29 N Y 2d 319, upon rearg. 33 N Y 2d 314; Redlich v. Capri Cinema, 43 A D 2d 27, 29).
Since defendant is a corporation, ' ' the only penal sanction that can be used is a fine " (Preiser, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons. Laws, Book 39, p. 166); a fine is the sole penalty (Penal Law, § 80.10). Hence, defendant was not entitled to trial by jury (Rankin v. Shanker, 23 N Y 2d 111, 120; Mature Enterprises v. Hogan, N. Y. L. J., Nov. 16, 1972, p. 2, col. 1). In the fact pattern before us, we conclude that the fine imposed was not excessive (Rankin v. Shanker, supra; People v. Gittelson, 18 N Y 2d 427, 431, affg. 25 A D 2d 265).
The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.
Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Fine and Frank, JJ.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.