Redlich v. Capri Cinema

18 Citing cases

  1. De Salvo v. Codd

    386 F. Supp. 1293 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)   Cited 2 times

    The Appellate Division put it nicely and neatly with a wave of the judicial wand, viz., "that the New York courts should synthesize by judicial construction the requirements of the Miller standards into CPLR 6330 . . . ." Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 43 A.D.2d 27, 349 N.Y.S.2d 697, 700 (App.Div. 1973). So despite the fact that § 6330 says one thing (permitting the enjoining of, e.g., an "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting" book, etc., something which is insufficiently specific under Miller or any non-obscenity canon of constitutional law), § 6330 has been held by the Appellate Division to permit only the enjoining of the very "narrow" class of materials that fall within the Miller standards, so-called.

  2. People v. Heller

    33 N.Y.2d 314 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 59 times
    In Heller, however, the New York Court of Appeals gave a clear, precise and unambiguous definition to the term "hard core pornography."

    The Appellate Division, First Department, in Redlich v. Capri Cinema ( 43 A.D.2d 27, 28) held that the provisions of CPLR 6330 were constitutional and well within the basic guidelines set forth in Miller. This statute authorizes the civil remedy of injunction to be used against "matter of an indecent character, which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting * * * or in any other respect [as] defined in section 235.00 of the penal law".

  3. Kent Prosecutor v. Goodrich Corp.

    53 Mich. App. 267 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 8 times
    In Kent County Prosecutor v Goodrich Corporation, 53 Mich. App. 267; 218 N.W.2d 771 (1974), it was held that the only courts of this state which could "authoritatively construe" the Michigan civil obscenity statute, MCLA 600.2938(1); MSA 27A.2938(1), were courts of last resort, i.e., the Michigan Court of Appeals or the highest court in the state, the Michigan Supreme Court.

    A very important and similar case from our sister state of New York is strong authority for upholding the instant injunction issued out of the trial court. In Redlich v Capri Cinema, Inc, 43 A.D.2d 27; 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 (1973), corporation counsel for the City of New York brought a civil action to enjoin the showing of obscene films. Plaintiff moved for a temporary injunction and defendant cross-moved for a summary judgment.

  4. Birkenshaw v. Haley

    409 F. Supp. 13 (E.D. Mich. 1974)   Cited 4 times

    413 U.S., at 25, 93 S.Ct., at 2615, 37 L.Ed.2d, at 431.United States v. Thevis, 484 F.2d 1149, 42 L.W. 2182 (C.A.5, 1973); Redlich v. Capri Cinema, 43 A.D.2d 27, 349 N.Y. So.2d 697, 42 L.W. 2297 (1973); State v. J-R Distributors, 82 Wn.2d 584, 512 P.2d 1049, 14 Crl 2006 (1973); Mitchum v. State, 14 Crl (Tenn. 1973); Chobot v. Circuit Court, 61 Wis.2d 354, 212 N.W.2d 690, 14 Crl 2323 (1973). Other courts have held that it is the prerogative of the legislature to provide the required specificity.

  5. State v. Bryant

    285 N.C. 27 (N.C. 1974)   Cited 15 times

    It would be naive to suggest that these defendants were not fully aware that the hard-core pornography they were disseminating constituted obscene material of the grossest character. As in Redlich v. Capri Cinema, Inc., 43 A.D.2d 27, 349 N.Y.S.2d 697 (1973), the ultimate acts of sexual perversion here involved would have been regarded as 'obscene' by the standards of Sodom and Gomorrah.        We are aware of the diversity of decisions in the various state jurisdictions which have considered the constitutionality of their statutes in the light of Miller and companion cases.

  6. Redlich v. Lido West Theatre

    33 N.Y.2d 521 (N.Y. 1974)

    Decided February 13, 1974 Appeal from (1st dept.: 43 A.D.2d 27) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL.

  7. Redlich v. Mature Enterprises

    33 N.Y.2d 521 (N.Y. 1974)

    Decided February 13, 1974 Appeal from (1st dept.: 43 A.D.2d 27) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL.

  8. Redlich v. Capri Cinema

    33 N.Y.2d 521 (N.Y. 1974)

    Decided February 13, 1974 Appeal from (1st dept.: 43 A.D.2d 27) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL.

  9. REDLICH v. MOD AMUSEMENT CO

    33 N.Y.2d 521 (N.Y. 1974)

    Decided February 13, 1974 Appeal from (1st dept.: 43 A.D.2d 27) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL.

  10. Equities v. Weiss

    149 Misc. 2d 628 (N.Y. App. Term 1991)   Cited 22 times

    Statutes which are penal in nature, but remedial or beneficial to the public, should be liberally or equitably construed so as to effect their purpose. (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 275; Matter of State of New York v. Strong Oil Co., 105 Misc.2d 803, affd on other grounds 87 A.D.2d 374; Redlich v. Capri Cinema, 43 A.D.2d 27, 31, lv. dismissed 33 N.Y.2d 974.) The provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Law were enacted by the Legislature in the public interest.