Case ID: misc_59/html/0368-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dowling, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

People of the State of New York ex rel. James Doherty, Relator, v. Moses M. McKee, as Special Deputy Commissioner of Excise, and Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner of Excise, Respondents.
    (Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
    May, 1908.)
    Intoxicating liquors — Granting license — To whom license granted — Conviction of agent or employee.
    The fact that an agent or employee of the holder of a liquor tax certificate was convicted of a crime committed on the licensed premises, for which the certificate was revoked, is not a ground, under subdivision 8 of section 17 of the Liquor Tax Law, for refusing the application, within a year thereafter, of the former certificate holder for a new certificate.
    Proceeding under .subdivision 1 of section 58 of Liquor Tax Law to compel the issuance of a liquor tax certificate for premises Hos. 2587-2289 Eighth avenue and 305-304 West One Hundred and Twenty-third street, borough of Manhattan, New York city.
    Julius M. Mayer, for relator.
    H. H. Kellogg, for respondents.
   Dowling, J.

A license issued for the premises in question had been forfeited May 20, 1907. by reason of the conviction of Joseph P. Boyle, an employee of the certificate holder. The certificate holder, James Doherty, on applying for a new certificate, was refused same by the special deputy commissioner of excise upon the ground that, under subdivision 8, section 17, of the Liquor Tax Law, as amended by chapter 144, Laws of 1908, which took effect April 21, 1908, no new certificate can be issued for the period of one year following the date of the conviction of the certificate holder for certain crimes committed on the licensed premises. The act in question is highly penal in its provisions; its penalties are severe and vigorous. I am of the opinion that it must be strictly construed and not extended by implication or construction. It, is significant that elsewhere in the act the words of extension to agents and employees are carefully used and reiterated.

The application for an order, directing the issue of a certificate to the petitioner is, therefore, granted.

Application granted.