Case Name: In the Matter of Harris Motors, Inc., et al., Appellants, against William Klapp, a City Magistrate of the City of New York, Presiding in the War Emergency Court of the Borough of Manhattan, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1947-02-28
Citations: 296 N.Y. 242
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Harris Motors, Inc., et al., Appellants, against William Klapp, a City Magistrate of the City of New York, Presiding in the War Emergency Court of the Borough of Manhattan, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 296
Pages: 242–244

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Harris Motors, Inc., et al., Appellants, against William Klapp, a City Magistrate of the City of New York, Presiding in the War Emergency Court of the Borough of Manhattan, et al., Respondents.
Argued January 14, 1947;
decided February 28, 1947.
Abraham Kaplan for appellants.
The Local Law in question (Local Laws, 1945, No. 34 of City of New York) having expired, any proceedings thereunder are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The order appealed from should be reversed and the applicatom of petitioners granted.
John J. Bennett, Corporation Counsel (Joseph J. Lucchi, Seymour B. Quel and Daniel Rosen of counsel), for respondents.
Local Law No. 34 of 1945 evidences a clear legislative intent that it shall apply to violations of any Federal regulation, relating to price, rationing and rent control programs, which “ has been or may hereafter be prescribed ” under authority of any acts of Congress. The offense charged against petitioners occurred on August 5,1946, when Federal price control regulations were in force and hence the War Emergency Court of the City Magistrates’ Courts is vested, with jurisdiction of the charge. (People v. Lewis, 295 N. Y. 42; People ex rel. Gross v. Adams, 270 App. Div. 607, 296 N. Y. 604; Matter of Meyer, 209 N. Y. 386; People ex rel. Wood v. Lacombe, 99 N. Y. 43; Westchester County S. P. C. A. v. Mengel, 292 N. Y. 121; People v. Mailman, 182 Misc. 870, 293 N. Y. 887; Transit Commission v. Long Island R. R. Co., 272 N. Y. 27; People v. Fire Association of Phila., 92 N. Y. 311; United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U. S. 304.)
Samuel Mermin, William E. Remy, David London and Kenneth V. Fisher for The Temporary Controls Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, as amicus curia, in support of respondents ’ position.
Local Law No. 34 was in full force and effect on August 5, 1946, the date of the ceiling price violation in this case. (Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U. S. 497; People v. Mailman, 182 Misc. 870, 293 N. Y. 887; Transit Commission v. Long Island R. R. Co., 248 App. Div. 749, 272 N. Y. 27.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Petitioners have pleaded not guilty to a complaint filed in the War Emergency Court of the Magistrates' Courts of the City of New York charging them with having violated section U41-4.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York in that on August 5, 1946, they offered for sale, sold and delivered a motor vehicle at a price in excess of the ceiling price of such car as fixed by the Office of Price Administration. In this proceeding to obtain an order in the nature of prohibition against the War Emergency Court, petitioners urge that Local Law No. 34 of the Laws of 1945, which enacted the section of the Administrative Code of the City of New York which they are charged with having violated, had expired on June 30, 1946, and was not in effect on .the day the offense was alleged to' have been committed. This question turned upon a construction of the local law. In our view, the Magistrate was not without jurisdiction to determine that question and to dismiss the proceeding or proceed with the trial accordingly. The .aggrieved party by the ordinary process of appeal may secure adequate relief from error, if such error should develop (cf. People ex rel. Hummel v. Trial Term, 184 N. Y. 30; People ex rel. Ballin v. Smith, 184 N. Y. 96). Solely on the ground that an order in the nature of prohibition is not available to petitioners, the determination of the courts below denying the application is affirmed.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thaoher, Dye and Fuld, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.