34 N.Y.2d 636 (1974)

A facial challenge to administrative regulations will fail if the regulations are not unconstitutional on their face or as applied and serve a proper purpose.

Summary

This case concerns a street peddler challenging the constitutionality and legality of New York City’s regulations governing street vending. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling, finding that the regulations, as modified, were not unconstitutional on their face or as applied to the appellant. The court emphasized the need for periodic review and revision of such regulations to maintain a balance between lawful regulation and the legitimate interests of street peddlers, while avoiding judicial intervention. The court noted the lack of support in the record for both the regulations and the appellant’s challenge.

Facts

Delbart Duchein, a street peddler in New York City, challenged the validity of city regulations governing street vending. The specific details of the regulations in question and the exact nature of Duchein’s challenge against them are not detailed extensively in this memo. However, it is clear that Duchein believed the regulations were overly restrictive and infringed upon his rights as a street vendor.

Procedural History

The case originated in a lower court, where Duchein likely sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the city. The Appellate Division modified the regulations, presumably addressing some of Duchein’s concerns. Duchein then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, seeking further relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the regulations as modified.

Issue(s)

Whether the New York City regulations governing street peddling are unconstitutional on their face or as applied to Duchein, and whether they are otherwise illegal.

Holding

No, because the record lacked sufficient support to demonstrate that the regulations, as modified by the Appellate Division, were unconstitutional on their face or as applied to the appellant, or that they were illegal.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found a lack of evidentiary support in the record for both the specifics and details of the administrative regulations under review and for Duchein’s assault on them. The court suggested the importance of regular review and potential revision of such regulations to maintain a fitting balance between the proper regulation of street peddling and the legitimate interests of street peddlers. This balance, according to the court, should be achieved through administrative alertness and common sense, to avoid judicial intervention which could be awkward. The court emphasized that on the current record, it could not conclude that the regulations were facially unconstitutional, unconstitutional as applied, or illegal. The court did not delve deeply into specific legal rules or precedents but focused on the need for administrative flexibility and a balanced approach in regulating street vending. The decision implies a deferential approach to administrative regulations when a clear showing of unconstitutionality or illegality is absent.