People v. Bedell

6 Citing cases

  1. Opn. No. 2004-10

    Opn. No. 2004-10 (Ops. N.Y. Atty. Gen. Oct. 4, 2004)

    Thus, there is no question that section 385 applies to Village streets and roads, which come within the VTL's definition of public highways. See VTL §§ 118, 134; seealsoPeople v. Bedell, 251 N.Y. 415, 416-17 (1929) (construing predecessor to VTL § 385 as applicable to village streets). B. The Scope Of The Village's Power Under The VTL To Enact A LocalLaw Regulating Truck Weight

  2. People v. Scanlan

    27 Misc. 2d 442 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1961)   Cited 5 times

    In fact, the courts have held that after the enactment of these statutes, existing ordinances regulating traffic, inconsistent with such statutes, were no longer enforcible. (See People v. President, etc. of Vil. of Ossining, supra; People v. City of Hornell, supra; People v. Bedell, 251 N.Y. 415; People v. City of Buffalo, 152 Misc. 375; People v. Marcello, 25 N.Y.S.2d 533.) Similar views have been expressed by the State departments.

  3. People v. Rodenbach

    204 Misc. 905 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1953)

    When the Court of Appeals of this State first considered section 282-a High. of the Highway Law (now Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 14), it held that it had exclusive precedence over a village ordinance covering the same subject matter. ( People v. Bedell, 251 N.Y. 415-416.) Later when construing the meaning of "motor vehicles" the same court referred to section 14 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, but did not specifically discuss subdivision 8 thereof.

  4. People v. Rodenbach

    204 Misc. 905 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 1953)

    When the Court of Appeals of this State first considered section 282-a of the Highway Law (now Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 14), it held that it had exclusive precedence over a village ordinance covering the same subject matter. (People v. Bedell, 251 N.Y. 415-416.) Later when construing the meaning of "motor vehicles" the same court referred to section 14 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, but did not specifically discuss subdivision 8 thereof.

  5. Sperling v. Valentine

    176 Misc. 826 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1941)   Cited 14 times
    In Sperling v. Valentine, 28 N.Y.S. 2d 788, a local law provided for the licensing of itinerant jobbers of foodstuffs in the city, imposing an annual license fee of $100 to $250 for each vehicle used by such jobbers.

    No categoric answer is to be found in the authorities. While it is quite clear that a municipality may not impose a license on vehicles generally ( City of Buffalo v. Lewis, 192 N.Y. 193), and may not close streets to vehicles of a certain description ( People v. Bedell, 251 N.Y. 415), yet it is undetermined except by inference as to whether a license may be required for engaging in an occupation which consists of putting a vehicle to a certain use on the city streets. The Administrative Code of the City of New York contains a statute which seems to present the same situation as the act under discussion, if anything in sharper outline.

  6. People v. Killmeyer

    171 Misc. 778 (N.Y. Sp. Sess. 1939)   Cited 1 times

    Inasmuch as the conviction rests upon the charge that the lights were not displayed at the time in question it cannot very well be said that we are dealing with the physical lighting equipment itself. In support of his contention defendant cites People v. Bedell ( 251 N.Y. 415) and People v. City of Buffalo ( 152 Misc. 375). The Bedell case involved an alleged violation of a village ordinance forbidding the operation on a public highway of a motor vehicle or trailer with a body width of more than eight feet, and the Court of Appeals merely held that the appropriate provisions of the State Highway Law were exclusively controlling.