Opinion
Submitted September 17, 1999.
June 5, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered June 9, 1998, convicting him of promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ozro Thaddeus Wells, New York, N.Y. (Kris E. Watson of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Andrew P. Leff of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The facts of this case are fully set forth in People v. Barrows ( 177 Misc.2d 712) and briefly restated in People v. Barrows ( 273 A.D.2d 246 [Appellate Division Docket No. 98-06328, decided herewith]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, Penal Law § 263.10, as applied in this case, does not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (US Const, art I, § 8, cl [3]). The statute, which was enacted to protect children from the sexual exploitation necessarily involved in the production of pornographic material, does not unduly burden interstate commerce (see, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.