Case ID: liquor-tax-rep_3/html/0352-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

First Appellate Department,
    May, 1904.
    Reported. 94 App. Div. 619.
    In the Matter of the Petition of Patrick W. Cullinan, as State Commissioner of Excise, Respondent, for an Order Revoking and Canceling Liquor Tax Certificate No. 2,892, Issued to Peter Capdeville & Co., Appellants.
    
      Holm S Smith for appellants.
    The provision of the act requiring an answer is unconstitutional, because it invades the privilege of silence. (Peck v. Cargill, 167 N. Y. 395; Hatter of Cullinan v. Kray, 82 App Div. 445.) Court has no power to take proof if certificate holder files no answer. (Cullinan v. Lehr, 40 Misc. 423; Town of Wirk v. Supervisors, 90 Hun, 214; Matter of Southworth, 5 Hun, 56; Duffus v. Howard Furniture Co., 8 App. Div. 567; Knox v. Baldwin, 80 N. Y. 610; Comstock v. Jachne, 103 N. Y. 182; People v. City of Brooklyn, 69 N. Y. 605; Moore v. Mansert, 49 N. Y. 332; People v. Supervisors, 67 N. Y. 109.)
    Proper construction shows no power to take proof and court may not enlarge the plain statutory provisions. (McClusky v Cromwell, 11 N. Y. 593; Matter of Middletown, 82 N. Y. 196; Benton v. Wickshire, 54 N. Y. 226; Sprague v. Birdsall, 2 Cow. 410; McKuskie v. Hendrickson, 128 N. Y. 558.) Special Term had no power to appoint referee. (Doyle v. Met. El. Ry. Co. 136 N. Y. 505; Steck v. Col. F. & I. Co., 142 N. Y. 236; Camp v. Ingersoll, 86 N. Y. 433.)
    
      
      Herbert H. Kellogg, for respondent.
    Order should be affirmed on the decision in Matter of Cullinan v. Neus, 89 App. Div. 613. The amendment, Chap. 486, Laws of 1903, cured any constitutional defect. A verified answer is no longer required. The decision in Cullinan v. Kray, (82 App. Div. 445), merely held that revocation should not be granted by default. The court has inherent power to order a reference, even if the defendant does not file an answer as the statute directs. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1015; Dwight v. St. Johns, 25 N. Y. 203; Marshall v. Meech, 51 N. Y. 140; Martin v. Hodges, 45 Hun, 38; 2 Rumsey’s Practice, 349; Davies v. Davies, 28 Abb. N. C. 170; People v. Ry. Co., 44 Hun, 552; Matter of Bohn, 4 Hun, 558; Amsdell v. Martin, 20 Weekly Dig. 370; Cen. Trust Co. v. Ry. Co., 42 Hun, 602; Matter of Lyman v. Erie &c. Club, 46 App. Div. 387, affd. 163 N. Y. 552.)
   Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

No opinion.