He, nonetheless, prays that his conviction on both counts be set aside on the ground that the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in ruling that lack of notice of the aforesaid violations afforded no defense, thereby depriving the jury of its right to determine as a question of fact, on the issue of culpable negligence, whether without such notice or knowledge he was "engaged in committing, or attempting to commit, a misdemeanor, affecting the person or property, either of the person killed" or whether such homicide when committed without a design to effect death, was the result of culpable negligence. It is true defendant was not personally notified of the violations in conformity with section 326 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, but nothing turns on such omission for such notice is not required in a criminal proceeding ( People v. Schwartz, 298 N.Y. 551). However, the record is replete with proof establishing that he had knowledge of the existence of the violations.

In dealing with a statute comparable to the one here under consideration, the Court of Appeals has held that subdivision 1 of section 326 Mult. Dwell. of the Multiple Dwelling Law, calling for service of notice, has no application to criminal proceedings. (People v Schwartz, 298 N.Y. 551; People v Nelson, 309 N.Y. 231.) The question remains whether due process requires a showing of actual knowledge or the probability of such knowledge as part of the People's prima facie case, before a nonresident landlord may be held criminally responsible for nonfeasance.

It is said that smoke often contains such substances as formaldehyde, arsenic and sulphurous compounds and such gases as fluorine, ammonia, chlorine and carbon monoxide. Assuming smoke carrying such noxious substances or gases, emitted willfully or in disregard of public health and safety such as would constitute an offense within the rules and regulations and the provisions of the act, it is not reasonable to say that notice of and opportunity for hearing before the smoke control board is required as a prerequisite to prosecution in the Magistrate's Court (People v. Schwartz, 298 N.Y. 551). Regulatory provisions requiring administrative procedure in the enforcement of standards of construction, installation, repair and alteration are within the cognizance of the civil law. The enforcement of prohibitive provisions, for the violation of which fine or imprisonment is the penalty, is usually regarded as within the purview of the criminal law, to be enforced by resort to the criminal courts.

It is said that smoke often contains such substances as formaldehyde, arsenic and sulphurous compounds and such gases as fluorine, ammonia, chlorine and carbon monoxide. Assuming smoke carrying such noxious substances or gases, emitted willfully or in disregard of public health and safety such as would constitute an offense within the rules and regulations and the provisions of the act, it is not reasonable to say that notice of and opportunity for hearing before the smoke control board is required as a prerequisite to prosecution in the Magistrate's Court ( People v. Schwartz, 298 N.Y. 551). Regulatory provisions requiring administrative procedure in the enforcement of standards of construction, installation, repair and alteration are within the cognizance of the civil law.