In United States v. Mazurie (419 US 544, 550), the Court said "it is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand" (see also, Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 US 356). In United States v. Powell (423 US 87), the Court noted that the lower court eschewed the "as applied" method because "it must necessarily have concluded ... that the prohibition of the statute proscribed no comprehensible course of conduct at all" and "it is well settled ... that such a statute may not constitutionally be applied to any set of facts." (United States v. Powell, supra, at 92.) The court does not find that Agriculture and Markets Law 350 (2) and 353 "proscribe no comprehensible course of conduct at all" because "they may not constitutionally be applied to any set of facts" (i.e., see, People v. Bunt, 118 Misc 2d 904 hitting a dog with a baseball bat), so the vagueness challenge "must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand."