Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of H. Koehler & Co., Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, v. Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner of Excise of the State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-05-22
Citations: 125 A.D. 886
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of H. Koehler & Co., Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, v. Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner of Excise of the State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 886–889

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of H. Koehler & Co., Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, v. Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner of Excise of the State of New York, Respondent.
First Department,
May 22, 1908.
Intoxicating liquors —■ suspended sentence for violation of statute — renewal of certificate within three years — rebate.
One who within three years from the issuance of his liquor tax certificate was tried by the Court of Special Sessions for a violation of the Liquor Tax Law and found guilty, is convicted of a violation'of the statute although sentence was suspended and never imposed.
Although the time within which sentence could be imposed on such conviction had expired at the time when another application for a liquor license was made, a statement by the applicant that he had not been convicted of a violation of the statute within three years is false and the assignees of the certificate so obtained are not entitled to a rebate.
Clarke, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the relator, H. Koehler & Co., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 16th day of March 1908, denying the relator’s motion for a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus.
Charles Goldzier, for the appellant.
Herbert H. Kellogg, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Scott, J.:
The relators, as assignees of a liquor tax certificate issued to one Joe Levy, seek to compel the payment of a rebate under the provisions of section 25 of the Liquor Tax Law. Their application is resisted upon the ground that said Levy was not " authorized to sell liquors under the provisions of this act/' because he falsely stated in his application for the certificate on April 19, 1907, " that he has not been convicted of a violation of said law within three years prior to the date of this application." (See Liquor Tax Law, § 23, subd. 1, clause d, as amd. by Laws of 1905, chap. 680.) If this statement was untrue, the application for a writ was properly denied. (People ex rel. Ochs v. Hilliard, 81 App. Div. 73.) It is undisputed that on February 19, 1905, the said Levy was tried in the Court of Special Sessions upon a charge of having violated the Liquor Tax Law, and was found guilty, but that sentence was suspended and has never been imposed, and that the time within which sentence thereon could have been imposed had expired when the alleged false statement was made. (Code Grim. Proc., § 470a, added by Laws of 1893, chap. 651.) The question is, whether the finding of guilty by the court, in this case equivalent to the verdict of a jury, although not followed by judgment, is a conviction under section 23 of the Liquor Tax Law. A similar question, involving the right to vote, has recently been decided by this court (People v. Fabian, 126 App. Div.---), and by analogy with that case it would appear that Levy was convicted of a violation of the Liquor Tax Law within three years before he applied for a certificate and that his statement to the contrary was false.
It follows that the order appealed from must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs.
Ingraham, McLaughlin andLAUGHLiN, JJ.,concurred; Clarke, J., dissented.
See Laws of 1896, chap. 112, § 25, as amd. by Laws of 1903, chap. 486. — [Rep.