Case Name: TESCHMACHER v. CLEMENT, State Com'r, et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-12-30
Citations: 120 N.Y.S. 537
Docket Number: 
Parties: TESCHMACHER v. CLEMENT, State Com’r, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 120
Pages: 537–540

Head Matter:
TESCHMACHER v. CLEMENT, State Com’r, et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 30, 1909.)
Intoxicating Liquors (§ 106 )—Liquor Tax Certificate—Forfeiture.
Two convictions of employés of the holder of a liquor tax certificate-within the lifetime of one certificate for two violations of the liquor law, one committed during the lifetime of such certificate and the other during the lifetime of a prior certificate, justify a forfeiture of the certificate- under Liquor Tax Law (Consol. Laws, c. 34), § 36, subd. 3, providing for forfeiture on two convictions of employés of the holder of a certificate.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 113, 115; Dec. Dig. § 106. ]
Laughlin and Houghton, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Termj New York County.
Action by Herman D. Teschmacher against Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner, and another. From, an order denying an injunction against seizing, removing, or canceling a liquor tax certificate, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
P. A. McManus, for appellant.
Frederick W. Stelle, for respondents.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For opinion on motion to certify questions, see 120 N. Y. Supp. 1006.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for an injunction restraining the sheriff from taking possession of and removing the liquor tax certificate issued to the plaintiff.
Subdivision 3 of section 36 of the liquor tax law of 1909 (being a re-enactment of the former act) provides as follows:
"(3) If there shall be two convictions of clerks, agents, employés or servants of a holder of a liquor tax certificate for a violation of this chapter, the liquor tax certificate of the principal shall be forfeited, and the- said principal shall be deprived of all rights and privileges thereunder, and of any right to any rebate of any portion of the tax paid thereon." Consol, Laws, c. 34.
Subdivision 8 of the same section makes it the duty of the holder of a forfeited certificate to surrender the same, and provides that in case of refusal a demand, as therein specified, shall be delivered to the sheriff for service, and he is thereupon required to make service of the demand, and take possession of the certificate. It is this act that it is Sought to restrain.
The plaintiff held a liquor tax certificate issued for the term from May 1, 1908, to September 30, 1908. During that time, and on or about September 27, 1908, 'one of his employés was arrested upon a charge of having violated the liquor tax law. Plaintiff obtained a certificate for the period from October 1, 1908, to September 30, 1909, and during this period, and on or about November 29, 1908, another employé was arrested charged with a violation of the liquor tax law. On June 25, 1909, Andre, the employé first arrested, was tried and convicted of the offense for which he had been arrested on September 27, 1908. Three days later, on June 28, 1909, Hoffman, the employé secondly arrested, was tried and convicted of the offense for which he had been arrested on November 29, 1908. Thus there is presented the case of two convictions, both within the lifetime of one certificate., for two offenses, one committed during the lifetime of one certificate, and the other committed during the lifetime of another certificate.
The appellant contends that the statute should be read as if it provided that two violations of the liquor tax law by employés of the holder, if committed during the lifetime of the same certificate, shall work a forfeiture. The only argument in favor of such a reading is that to construe the act as it is written would in this particular case Work a hardship. That is not a sufficient reason for disregarding the plain language of the statute. Matter of Hering, 133 App. Div. 293, 117 N. Y. Supp. 747. What the statute plainly says is that two convictions shall work a forfeiture. The language is too plain to require construction, and, even if we are to assume that these two convictions must be had during the lifetime of a single certificate, that necessity is satisfied by the facts of the present case.
The order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
INGRAHAM, J., concurs.