People v. Lavender, 48 N.Y.2d 334 (1979)

A law that criminalizes the failure to perform a contract for services, rather than targeting fraud, violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude.

Summary

Bernard Lavender, president of All-Weather Exteriors, Inc., was convicted on several counts, including abandoning home improvement contracts without justification, a misdemeanor under New York City’s Administrative Code. The New York Court of Appeals considered whether this provision was constitutional. The court found sufficient evidence to convict Lavender on one count related to the Bowman contract. However, the court held that the Administrative Code provision, which criminalized failure to perform a contract rather than fraudulent intent, violated the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on involuntary servitude, thus reversing the lower court’s decision.

Facts

Bernard Lavender was the president of All-Weather Exteriors, Inc. He was indicted on 41 counts related to the company’s transactions. Three counts charged him with abandoning home improvement contracts without justification with Gloria Roberts, Lee Bowman, and Clara Jones. Lee Bowman complained in December 1972 that work remained incomplete. Bowman testified that Lavender promised completion but never followed through. Lavender claimed his offer was conditional and a settlement was reached. Lavender signed a false certificate of completion for the Bowman contract.

Procedural History

Lavender was convicted in a bench trial. The Appellate Division affirmed some convictions but reversed the conviction for willful deviation from contract terms. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions for abandoning contracts but deleted the prison sentences. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether Section B32-358.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which makes it a misdemeanor to abandon or willfully fail to perform a home improvement contract without justification, violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s proscription of involuntary servitude.

Holding

Yes, because the Administrative Code provision is directed at the failure to perform services necessary to carry out the contract, not at the fraud involved in entering a contract with no intention to perform. It therefore violates the Thirteenth Amendment.

Court’s Reasoning

The court relied on several Supreme Court cases, including Bailey v. Alabama, Taylor v. Georgia, and Pollock v. Williams, which addressed statutes criminalizing the failure to perform labor contracts after receiving an advance. Although those cases involved peonage more directly, the court found that the principles established applied to the present case. The court emphasized that while states can punish fraud, they cannot criminalize the mere failure to labor in discharge of a debt. The court quoted Pollock v. Williams stating: “But when the state undertakes to deal with this specialized form of fraud, it must respect the constitutional and statutory command that it may not make failure to labor in discharge of a debt any part of a crime. It may not directly or indirectly command involuntary servitude, even if it was voluntarily contracted for.”
The court reasoned that the Administrative Code provision was directed at the failure to perform services, not at the fraud of intending not to perform when the contract was made. Therefore, it violated the Thirteenth Amendment and related federal statutes prohibiting peonage and involuntary servitude.