In People v. Shack (86 N.Y.2d 529 [1995]) the defendant had been convicted of violating section 240.30 (2) as a result of having left numerous messages on the complaining witness' voice mail stating that "if she refused to speak with him, he would sell her telephone number to a 'pervert' who would delight in calling and upsetting her, that he would place dozens of phone calls to other family members and that he would call the Michigan licensing board to have her psychologist's license revoked." (86 N.Y.2d at 534.) The Court of Appeals found that the statute was not facially invalid for either overbreadth or vagueness. Rejecting the overbreadth argument, the Court concluded that "even if the statute may, on rare occasion, reach constitutionally protected expression, we are unable to conclude that the statute's overbreadth, if any, is substantial . . . ." (86 N.Y.2d at 537.)