Citations
- 282 A.D. 643
Full opinion text
Imrie, J.
In this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act petitioner seeks to review the determination of the Board of Begents of the University of the State of New York, respondents, which affirmed a determination of Hugh M. Flick, Director of the Motion Picture Division, respondent, refusing to license a film entitled, ££ Teenage Menace.” The proceeding has been transferred to this court for determination by order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, Albany County. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296.) License was refused on the ground that the public exhibition of the film would ‘£ tend to corrupt morals ’ ’ and ££ incite to crime.”
Section 122 of the Education Law permits licensing of motion picture films for public exhibition unless the “ film or a part thereof is obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious, or is of such a character that its exhibition would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime * * *.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioner, invoking the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press, and with principal reliance on Joseph Burstyn, Inc., v. Wilson (343 U. S. 495, revg. 303 N. Y. 242) asserts the unconstitutionality of the statute referred to and the consequent acts of respondents. That position overlooks the force of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Commercial Pictures Corp. v. Board of Regents (305 N. Y. 336, affg. 280 App. Div. 260), which ruled that a refusal to license a motion picture for public exhibition on the ground that it was ££ immoral ” and ££ would tend to corrupt morals ” was not a denial of constitutional rights. Mr. Justice Bergan, writing for the majority of this court, had expressed the view that £