Court Opinion

ID: 9697793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:30:27.482027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:35.358988
License: Public Domain

*470Dissenting Opinion by
President Judge Crumlish, JR.:
I respectfully dissent.
The record, on stipulation of facts, shows that the petitioners manufacture for sale and distribution a product to be consumed at home.
61 Pa. Code §49.1 pertinently defines “caterer” as
[o]ne primarily engaged in the selling, providing or furnishing of food and beverages which are essentially fully prepared and usually ready-to-eat and which are intended for immediate consumption at a specific meal, affair or social function, usually at the premises of one other than the caterer, whether or not delivery to those premises, or food service is also provided by the caterer.
(Emphasis added.)
The petitioners deliver pizzas (and beverages) fully prepared, hot and ready-to-eat. The petitioners’ customers intend to consume them immediately, either as a meal or at a specific meal olf the premises, usually at their home. Thus, the petitioners fit squarely within the Code’s definition which, significantly, contains a provision that “food service”—i.e., preparation and arrangement of food, napkins, flatware, and other accessories —need not be provided in order to qualify as a caterer.
The petitioners furnish products for meals and/or social affairs, no matter how informal those events may be. I do not discern a substantive legal difference in the distinction between pizza delivery service and the notion of caterer “in the usual sense of the word.” Majority op., p. 466.
I would grant the Commonwealth’s exceptions.