Opinion
Argued May 5, 1981
Decided June 4, 1981
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, ALFRED F. SAMENGA, J.
John Joseph Sutter and Ruth C. Balkin for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney (Judith R. Sternberg and William C. Donnino of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Subdivision 3 of section 107 of the Civil Service Law is a valid regulation of partisan political conduct. What it proscribes is the giving within a building occupied for governmental purposes by a public officer to his subordinates of notice that they are to collect and receive political contributions (People v Haff, 47 N.Y.2d 695). Limited as to place, its regulation of speech is reasonable (Civil Serv. Comm. v Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548; Broadrick v Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601; Ex Parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371). Nor, in view of the commonly understood meaning of the words in which it is phrased, can it be held void for vagueness (Broadrick v Oklahoma, supra, at pp 607-608).
The evidence of defendant's guilt was sufficient since as People v Haff (supra) makes clear the section does not require that coercive language be used, and since there was nonaccomplice testimony fairly tending to connect defendant with the commission of the crime (People v Glasper, 52 N.Y.2d 970).
We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.