Court Opinion

ID: 9885566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:07:21.414415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:55.113537
License: Public Domain

Desmond, J.
(concurring). I concur for affirmance but on a different ground. I do not reach the question of the sufficiency of the proof to sustain the conviction, since, in my view, the statute itself (Penal Law, § 1990-a, subd. 2) is invalid on its face. If it contained no more than a prohibition against “ loitering ”, it probably could be upheld, since that term has, *117by long statutory usage, taken on a reasonably definite meaning (see citations under heading “ Loiter; Loitering ” in Wo~ds and Phrases, Vol. 25). But the draftsman of this law, in an excess of either zeal or caution, did not stop at making one guilty of an offense who “ loiters ”, but went on to add a proviso or qualification which, though an essential and integral part of the enactment, is so completely vague and meaningless as to make the whole of the subdivision unenforcible.
One is guilty of an offense, says the statute, who “ loiters ” about a railroad station, and “ who is unable to give satisfactory explanation of his presence ”. The reference to “ satisfactory explanation ” is an essential part of this criminal statute, and cannot be deleted therefrom by the courts (People v. Teal, 196 N. Y. 372, 378; People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin, 60 Misc. 306, 308). It follows that, if the “ satisfactory explanation ” proviso lacks sufficient clarity for reasonable application, the whole statute is bad. We find no reasonably clear meaning for the language: “ unable to give satisfactory explanation of his presence ”. When is the explanation to be given, and to whom? Who is to be satisfied? Is the offense complete when a police officer or a railroad employee rejects the explanation proffered for an otherwise innocent act? Or, worse still, is the adequacy of the explanation to await determination at a trial, with all the intervening trouble, annoyance and expense to the defendant? A statute which leaves such questions open falls below rational standards (People v. Adamkiewicz, 298 N. Y. 176, 179, and cases cited; Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507).
The order of the County Court should be affirmed.
Lewis, Ch. J., Conway, Dye and Froessel, JJ., concur with Van Voorhis, J.; Desmond, J., concurs in separate opinion in which Fuld, J., concurs.
Order affirmed.