Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barney Scher and George Scher, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-11-15
Citations: 185 A.D. 100
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barney Scher and George Scher, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 100–103

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barney Scher and George Scher, Appellants.
Second Department,
November 15, 1918.
Crime — conducting business under assumed name — evidence justifying conviction.
Defendants were properly convicted of the crime of conducting business under an assumed name, in violation of section 440 of the Penal Law, where the proof showed that they filed a certificate for the use of a family name which was not the name of any one of the persons conducting or intending to conduct the business.
The conviction was proper, although it appeared that the wife of one of the' defendants was interested in a corporation using said family name: Kelly and Mills, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, Barney Scher and another, from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Part Two, county of Kings, rendered against them on the 13th day of February, 1917, convicting them of a violation of section 440 of the Penal Law.
Joseph Gans [C. Arthur Jensen with him’ on the brief], for the appellants.
John E. Ruston, Assistant District Attorney [Harry E. Lewis, District Attorney, and Harry G. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Jaycox, J.:
The information filed in this matter accuses the defendants of the crime of conducting business under an assumed name. It also and more directly accuses the defendants with having filed a certificate for the use of a family name, the family name so used not being the true or real name of any one of the persons conducting or intending to conduct said business. This certificate was false, without question. Robert Baumann, named therein, was not interested in the company mentioned in it. His wife was not interested in that company. The fact that she was interested in the Baumann Furniture Company, Inc., a corporation, does not alter the fact that she was not interested in the Robert Baumann Furniture Company, a copartnership or association of individuals for which said certificate was filed. The filing of the certificate does not create a corporation, but I think it is a fair assumption from it that the individuals named therein constituted a partnership. If the business was in fact conducted by the Baumann Furniture Company, Inc., in which Mrs. Baumann was a stockholder, the certificate was false nevertheless:
First. Because the Robert Baumann Furniture Company mentioned in the certificate did not conduct the business.
Second. Because Mrs. Baumann was not interested in the Robert Baumann Furniture Company mentioned in the certificate.
Third. The statute does not relate to corporations, and her interest in a corporation of a similar name was not the interest the statute contemplates.
Therefore, no person of the name of Baumann was interested in the Robert Baumann Furniture Company mentioned in the certificate. The Robert Baumann Furniture Company, Inc., did not come into existence until some time after the transaction complained of. It is, therefore, idle to claim that it had any connection with or in any way justified the filing of such a certificate.
The record is very unsatisfactory and confusing, but I think it sufficiently appears from it that the defendants filed a certificate for the purpose of transacting business under the name of the Robert Baumann Furniture Company and there was no person by the name of Baumann interested in that company.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Jenks, P. J., and Blackmar, J., concurred; Kelly, J., read for reversal, with whom Mills, J., concurred.