Opinion

People v. Clark

  • 60 Misc. 2d 1073
  • 304 N.Y.S.2d 326
  • 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1285
Court
Criminal Court of the City of New York
Filed
Aug 11, 1969
Status
Published
Author
Midonick
On the bench
Midonick, Ringel
Cited by
7 cases

The opinion

Midonick, J.,

concurs in the findings as well as the result, with this additional concurring comment.

If, in fact, there is some redeeming medical therapeutic value to this device, as the brochure given with the article purports to specify, based upon anonymous medical authority, two comments are in order: (A) this type of evidence is incompetent and was received for limited purposes on the prosecution’s offer only because it was part of the sale and part of the ‘ ‘ pandering ”, and; (B) according to section 2310 of the Public Health Law, such brochure as is before the court concerning lost manhood, lost vitality, impotency, sexual weakness and the like, and such advice as the brochure sets forth is forbidden except when issued by an incorporated hospital, or by a licensed dispensary, or by a municipal board or department of health — not a bookstore.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.