whereas the New York statute restricted its definition of the term “harmful to minors” as “utterly without redeeming social importance for minors.” 521 U.S. at 865, 117 S.Ct. at 2341. 6 . Cyberspace Comms., Inc. v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D.Mich.1999), affd 238 F.3d 420 (6th Cir.2000) (striking down Michigan statute, M.C.L. 722.675(1), M.S.A. 25.254(5)(1) (prohibiting "knowingly” disseminating to a minor sexually explicit material harmful to minors without scienter requirement as to age of recipient)); American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir.1999) (striking down N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-37-3.2(C), criminalizing dissemination of material harmful to minors by computer; no scienter requirement); American Libraries Ass’n v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y.1997)
holding that new york law applies to this matter holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding unconstitutional new york penal law section 2352 prohibiting use of computer to knowingly initiate or engage in communication harmful to minors no scienter requirement as to age of minor holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership recognizing that because  the drafters of the connecticut penal code relied heavily upon    the penal code of new york  it is appropriate to look to new york statutory and case law for guidance in interpreting connecticut penal code