Case ID: liquor-tax-rep_2/html/0197-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Second Appellate Department,
    November, 1899.
    Reported. 44 App. Div. 501.
    In the Matter of the Petition of Henry H. Lyman, State Commissioner of Excise, Appellant, for an Order Revoking and Canceling Liquor Tax Certificate No. 29,661, Issued to Raffaele Salatino, Respondent.
    Liquor tax certificate—Forfeited only upon conviction of a violation of the Excise Law.
    A liquor tax certificate can be forfeited, for a violation of the Excise Law by the licensee, only upon conviction for such offense; in the absence of such conviction a proceeding for the revocation of the certificate can not be maintained.
    Appeal by the petitioner, Henry H. Lyman, State Commissioner of Excise, from afi order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 12th day of May, 1899, denying his application for an order revoking and canceling the liquor tax certificate of Raffaele Salatino.
    This proceeding was begun upon the ground that the respondent, having a license which only permitted him to sell liquors, no part of which was to be drunk upon the premises, violated the Excise Law by selling liquor to persons who drank upon the premises. It did not appear that any criminal proceedings had been instituted against the respondent.
    
      W. E. Schenck, for the appellant,
    
      Louis J. Somerville, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The only ground on which it was sought to have the respondent’s license revoked was that he had violated the Excise Law in selling liquor to be drunk on the premises without a license or liquor tax certificate authorizing such sale. In Matter of Lyman (160 N. Y. 96) the Court of Appeals has held that a liquor tax certificate can be forfeited for a violation of law by the holder only upon conviction for such offense, and not in a summary investigation before a justice of this court or a magistrate. It follows that this proceeding cannot be maintained.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.