
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent Keane, Appellant.
    Submitted October 12, 1944;
    decided November 22, 1944.
    
      Vincent Keane, appellant in person.
    The ordinance is invalid and unenforcible. (Vehicle & Traffic Law, § 54; City of Buffalo 
      v. Lewis, 192 N. Y. 193; People v. Bedell, 251 N. Y. 415; People v. County of Westchester, 282 N. Y. 224; People v. Schrader, 172 Misc. 246; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. City of New York, 173 Misc. 470; People v. Marcello, 25 N. Y. S. 2d 533; Decker v. Goddard, 233 App. Div. 139; People v. President & Trustees of Village of Ossining, 238 App. Div. 684, 264 N. Y. 574; Gilsey Buildings, Inc., v. Village of Great Neck Plaza, 170 Misc. 945; Holroyd v. Town of Indian Lake, 180 N. Y. 318; Jewish Consumptives’ Relief Soc. v. Town of Woodbury, 230 App. Div. 228, 256 N. Y. 619; Matter of N. Y., W. & B. Ry. Co. v. Huntington, 193 N. Y. 72.)
    
      Edward J. Neary, District Attorney (Philip Huntington of counsel), for respondent.
    I. The town hoard had power to enact the ordinance in question. (Town Law, § 130, subd. 6; Matter of Jordan v. Smith, 137 Misc. 341, 254 N. Y. 585; Matter of O’Donnell v. Morrissey, 151 Misc. 315; People v. Propp, 172 Misc. 314; Berlenbach v. Bischoff, 137 Misc. 719, 231 App. Div. 734; People ex rel. B. P. Comm. v. Common Council, 229 N. Y. 1; Coykendall v. City of Kingston, 115 Misc 557; People v. Jones, 218 App. Div. 443.) II. The ordinance in question is not so “ inconsistent with law ” as to be void. (People v. President & Trustees of Village of Ossining, 238 App. Div. 684, 264 N. Y. 574; Chapman v. Selover, 172 App. Div. 858; People v. Rubin, 284 N. Y. 392.)
   Per Curiam.

The Town Law, section 130, subdivision 6 (now subd. 7), confers upon a town board a limited authority to restrict. parking on the .streets of the town. An ordinance enacted in conformity with the authority so conferred is not “ inconsistent with law because such authority had previously been expressly withheld from town boards by section 54 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachee, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.  