Case Name: PEOPLE v. KOZAK et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-04-30
Citations: 142 N.Y.S. 39
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. KOZAK et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 142
Pages: 39–43

Head Matter:
(156 App. Div. 460.)
PEOPLE v. KOZAK et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
April 30, 1913.)
Intoxicating Liquors (§ 167 )—Illegal Sales—Parties Liable.
Where the proprietor of a saloon illegally sold liquor and consented to a sale made on the same day by his bartender in his absence, the . two were properly convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of Liquor Tax Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 34) § 30a.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 182, 183; Dec. Dig. § 167.*]
Foote, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Oneida County.
John Kozak and another were convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of Liquor Tax Law, § 30a, and they appeal. Affirmed.
The defendants were jointly indicted by a grand jury of Oneida county on October 30, 1912, for a violation of the Liquor Tax Law of the state of New Fork alleged to have been committed in the village of New York Mills on June 9, 1912. They were tried together and were found guilty of such offense, and on December 6, 1912, were each sentenced by the court to six months’ imprisonment in the Onondaga county penitentiary.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and KRUSE, ROBSON, EOOTE, and LAMBERT, JJ.
C. D. Phillips, of Utica (P. H. Eitzgerald, of Utica, of counsel), for appellants.
Bradley Euller, Dist. Atty., of Utica, for the People.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. &A.m. Digs. 1907 to date, & Bep’r Indexes

Opinion:
McLENNAN, P, J.
The evidence tends to show that Peter Kozak was the proprietor of a saloon or place in which liquor was illegally sold and in which said "alleged violation took place; that he sold such liquor in the morning at about 7 o'clock; and that later in the forenoon his brother, John Kozak, also made a similar sale in such saloon or place.
We think that the sale by the proprietor and the sale by his brother, John, whether as agent, copartner, or otherwise, constituted an offense within the meaning of the statute as far as the proprietor of the saloon is concerned, and that the two sales made upon the same day at the same place could properly be considered as one crime for which the proprietor, Peter, might be indicted and convicted, and that the sale upon one of such occasions by John made him a joint offender with the proprietor for which both are liable to be punished, and therefore that they were both properly jointly indicted and convicted. Hall v. McKechnie, 22 Barb. 244; People v. Utter, 44 Barb. 170; Woollen & Thornton, Law of Intoxicating Liquors (1910 Ed.) vol. 2, § 802, 803, 806, 813, and 821.
We think that the provisions of the statute bearing upon this question are very significant. It provides:
•'Sec. 35. Persons Liable for Violations of This Chapter. Any. person engaged in the traffic in liquors, whether as officer of a corporation, or association, or as a member of a copartnership, or an individual, shall upon conviction of a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter be liable for and . suffer the penalties imposed therein; and any clerk, agent, employe or servant shall be equally liable as principals for any violation of the provisions of this chapter, and except as hereinafter provided, each violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to constitute a separate ancjl complete offense, and for each violation on the same day, or on different days, the person or persons offending shall be liable to the penalties and forfeitures imposed by this chapter; and in section thirty-six providing for penalties and forfeitures when corporations or associations are referred to, and penalties and forfeitures are imposed thereon, the same shall be understood to mean and apply to the officers of such corporation or association. All violations of this chapter, committed by any person on the same day, shall together constitute but one crime, which shall be denominated the crime of 'violating the liquor tax law,' and it shall be competent to prove, on the' trial or hearing, each separate violation committed on said date, provided each violation proved is set forth in the indictment, charge or complaint, in general or specific terms."
We conclude that there being evidence tending to show that Peter Kozak was the proprietor of the saloon or place in question and that he himself sold intoxicating liquors in violation of the statute in the morning of such day and later in the day by his brother, John Kozak, the other defendant, as bartender, agent, servant, copartner, or otherwise, both were guilty of the offense charged, namely, that of "violating the Liquor Tax Law," and were properly jointly indicted and convicted.
I think the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
KRUSE, ROBSON, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur in result in a separate memorandum by KRUSE, J. FOOTE, J., dissents in an opinion.