MATTER OF UMAR v. N.Y. ST. NARCOTIC ADD. CON. COMM., 28 N.Y.2d 732 (1971)

321 N.Y.S.2d 116, 269 N.E.2d 825

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued February 24, 1971
Decided April 7, 1971

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department.

Raymond S. Calamaro and Paul G. Chevigny for appellant.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Mortimer Sattler an Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), for respondents.

Order reversed, without costs, and the respondent commission’s determination annulled in a memorandum. Memorandum: The order appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and the respondent’s determination suspending the petitioner for 15 days for insubordination annulled, on the ground that in the present context the respondent’s regulation that its male personnel “shall not allow their hair to grow to an undue length” (italics supplied) is so vague and uncertain as to offend against constitutional demands of due process. (See, e.g., Ashton v. Kentucky,

Page 733

384 U.S. 195, 200; Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-403; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360; People v O’Gorman, 274 N.Y. 284, 286-287; see, also, Westley v Rossi, 305 F. Supp. 706, 713; Myers v. Arcata Union High School Dist., 269 Cal.App.2d 549.) In this view we find it unnecessary to consider or pass upon the other constitutional arguments asserted by the petitioner. (See, e.g., Richards v Thurston, 424 F.2d 1281, 1284-1285, affg. 304 F. Supp. 449.)

Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON.