Laserfiche WebLink
Dominic Yagong, Ch <br /> 31 July 1997 <br /> Page 3 <br /> In Fav's Incorporated v. New York State Department of Health, <br /> 645 NYS 2d. 995 (Misc 1996), where enforcement of the <br /> prohibition of the sale of tobacco products to minors relied <br /> wholly on complaints lodged by an anti-smoking activist group, <br /> the court went even further, finding that, no matter how <br /> praiseworthy the intention, an impermissible delegation of <br /> govermental authority had occurred. <br /> A contrary result was reached in Provo v. Hansen, 585 P.2d. 461 <br /> (Ut 1978), a case involving an injunction from housing more than <br /> the permitted number of students in one dwelling. Even there, <br /> however, a dissent by the Chief Justice strongly criticized the <br /> practice of permitting known violations unless the neighbors <br /> object. I i at 463. In any event, this case, as it involves <br /> conduct not readily visible to the passerby, is plainly <br /> distinguishable. As pointed out by the Court in Klein (supra at <br /> 790), some cases are impracticable to enforce by government <br /> initiation. Where, however, as in sign violations, the alleged <br /> violation is "open and notorious, it is the obligation of the <br /> legally instituted enforcing body to establish some adequate <br /> method to ensure that the guarantee of equal protection under <br /> the law...is met." Ibid at 791. <br /> To summarize, while I do not believe that the applicant has <br /> established the case for discrimination in enforcement of the <br /> sign ordinance, the present reported practice of responding only <br /> to complaints is fraught with danger. Should the requested <br /> variance be denied, it is strongly recommended that enforcement <br /> be undertaken against the other violators in the area, some of <br /> which are named by the applicant. To close our eyes to the <br /> obvious, and proceed against only one of a known group of <br /> violators, merely because someone complained, is "an unseemingly <br /> state of affairs openly inviting discrimination and harassment <br /> of one group by another". People v. Acme Markets, 334 NE 2d <br /> 555, 558 (NY 1975). <br /> Sincerely, <br /> <br /> ~KICHARD D. WURDE N: <br /> Corporation Cowl`s <br /> RDW:1679Lbre <br /> <br />