Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of George R. Nobles, for the Revocation and Cancellation of the Liquor Tax Certificate of James H. Youngs
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-12
Citations: 1 Liquor Tax Rep. 247
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of George R. Nobles, for the Revocation and Cancellation of the Liquor Tax Certificate of James H. Youngs.
Judges: 
Reporter: Liquor Tax Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Fourth Appellate Department,
December, 1897.
Reported. 24 App. Div. 632.
In the Matter of the Application of George R. Nobles, for the Revocation and Cancellation of the Liquor Tax Certificate of James H. Youngs.
Dolson & Dolson, for appellant.
License was granted to one Duke, March 6, 1896, and was in force and uncancelled on March 23, 1896, though the building was not actually used for the sale of liquors, negotiations.being had for its remodeling for such use, which was subsequently done; liquor tax certificates were issued continuously to April 30, 1898.
The order revoking and cancelling defendant’s liquor tax certificate, upon the ground that the traffic in liquor was not actually and lawfully carried on upon said premises on March 23, 1896, and that defendant had made false statements in his application, was untenable, and there was no evidence showing falsity of such statements.
The certificate was a license for the building, (People v. Hamilton, 47 N. Y. Supp. 181) and the words “ actually lawfully carried on” should be given such construction as would carry out the intent of the legislature. (People ex rel. Wood v. Lacombe, 99 N. Y. 43; also 95 N. Y. 558; 10 N. Y. 369; 21 N. Y. 461; 13 N. Y. 78; 22 Wend. 397; 6 Hill, 619.)
This proceeding could be brought only by the owner of a building within two hundred feet, as such a provision is made for the protection of such owners.
Clarence A. Farnum, for respondent.
No traffic was carried on on March 23, 1896, for the premises were vacant. Duke had a license which expired May 1, 1896, but such license could not avail the appellant, for his own certificate was not granted until August 31, 1896. (People ex rel. Cairns v. Murray, 148 N. Y. 175; Matter of Zinzow, 18 Misc, 653; Matter of Ritchie, 18 Misc. 341; People ex rel. Sweeney v. Lammerts, 18 Misc. 343, affd. 14 App. Div. 628.)

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs.
All concurred, except Ward, J., not voting.