Small v. Bud-K Worldwide, Inc.
895 F. Supp. 2d 438
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Plaintiff Nicholas Small sues Rice, Kalaudjian, and Bud-K Worldwide, seeking a declaration that the Black Cat Key-chain is legal to possess in New York and not a metal knuckle for purposes of Penal Law § 265.01(1).
- Plaintiff also asserts Bud-K violated GBL §§ 349 and 350 by advertising and selling the item and alleges breach of an Assurance of Discontinuance dated October 29, 2002.
- Small moves for partial summary judgment asserting § 265.01(1) is void for vagueness; Bud-K also moves for summary judgment on the same basis.
- County defendants move for summary judgment, arguing the statute is not vague, assert qualified immunity, and contend there is no Second Amendment right to possess a Black Cat Keychain; they also argue plaintiff’s conviction is not invalidated, precluding this action.
- Key factual background includes Small’s June 13, 2010 purchase of the keychain and his September 16, 2010 arrest for possession of an item alleged to be metal knuckles, to which he pled guilty to a related charge under § 240.20(7).
- The court analyzes the vagueness challenge under the as-applied standard and determines § 265.01(1) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the Black Cat Keychain, granting the County defendants’ summary judgment and denying those of Small and Bud-K.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 265.01(1) is void for vagueness as applied to the Black Cat Keychain. | Small argues the statute is vague and undefined for metal knuckles, making possession ambiguous. | County contends the statute is not vague and provides sufficient guidance for ordinary people. | Not vague as applied; County defendants granted summary judgment. |
| Whether Heck bars this civil declaration action. | Small contends Heck does not bar a declaration when conviction is not being overturned. | County argues Heck may bar claims that would imply invalidity of conviction. | Heck does not bar the action; court proceeds with vagueness analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1997) (standard for vagueness and fair warning in criminal statutes)
- United States v. Velastegui, 199 F.3d 590 (2d Cir. 1999) (vagueness framework for criminal statutes)
- Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1988) (due process fair warning requirement)
- People v. Laguna, 124 Misc.2d 182 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1984) (spikes not metal knuckles under statute)
- People v. Singleton, 127 Misc.2d 735 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1985) (factors for identifying metal knuckles)
- State v. Neighbors, 908 P.2d 649 (Kan.App. 1995) (statutory vagueness analysis for metal knuckles)
- United States v. Morrison, 686 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2012) (courts’ interpretation variances do not automatically render statutes vague)