Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Lewis 33 N.Y. Crim. 209

← Cases

People v. Lewis

33 N.Y. Crim. 209 Court N.Y. Ct. Spec. Sess. Decision date 1915-05-24 English

Judges Present :—Hon. George J. O’Keefe, P. J., John J. Freschi, and Joseph F. Moss, JJ.

Delivered by Freschi, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 209
SPECIAL SESSIONS—NEW YORK CITY,
May 24, 1915.
THE PEOPLE v. LEWIS.

Headnote

Labob Law sec. 79c-3—Bolted doob between two separate factories.
A bolted door between two separate factories adjacent to each other, is a violation of Sec. 79c~3 of the Labor Law, which provides that all means of egress shall be maintained in an unobstructed condition, and that no door leading into or out of any factory or any floor thereof shall be locked, bolted or fastened during working hours.
Present :—Hon. George J. O’Keefe, P. J., John J. Freschi, and Joseph F. Moss, JJ.
Appearances :—Frederick H. Cunningham, Attorney for Department of Labor, for the People. Mark E. Goldberg, Esq., for the Defendant.

At a factory building Number 594 Broadway, in the City and County of New York, the defendant, the manager of S. Noveck & Company, shirt manufacturers, kept a door locked in the factory of his employers, during working hours. The eighth floor loft is bisected by a wooden partition, in which the door in question is placed, Noveck & Company occupying the front half of this loft is a factory and one V. Luciano, maintaining a laundry in the remainder of the loft. These are distinct and separate factories, adjacent to each other. The door is used at times by Noveck & Company in passing into and from Luciano’s place to serve their business purposes, and when the door is not so used, the defendant keeps the door bolted as stated. This violates section 79c—3 of the Labor Law, which provides that all means of egress shall be maintained in an unob

p. 210
structed condition, and that no door leading into or out of any factory or any floor thereof shall be locked, bolted or fastened during working hours. (See also sec. 79b—1, Labor Law). The purposes of this statute are obvious. ,

The People have sustained the burden of proof an'd I vote to find the defendant guilty.

O’Keefe, J., concurs.