
    Second Appellate Department,
    April Term, 1905.
    Reported. 104 App. Div. 205.
    In the Matter of the Petition of Patrick W. Cullinan, as State Commissioner of Excise, Respondent, for an Order Revoking and Canceling Liquor Tax Certificate No. 10,239 Issued to Panagioti Nicolya and Transferred to Spero Gretes. Panagioti Nicolya and Spero Gretes, Appellants.
    Liquor tax certificate—Revocation of, as against an assignee thereof because of a violation of the Jaw by his assignor—The fact that the Special Deputy Commissioner has consented to the assignment is immaterial.
    Where, upon the filing o£ a petition by the holder of a liquor tax certificate, in which such holder falsely and fraudulently stated that he had not violated any of the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law, a Special Deputy Commissioner of Excise, who had no notice of any violation thereof by him, consents to the transfer of the certificate to another person, the fact that the transferee had no knowledge of the alleged violation will not.prevent the subsequent revocation of the certificate because of the violation of the Liquor Tax Law by his assignor.
    Appeal by Panagioti Nicolya and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the petitioner, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 20th day of July, 1904, upon an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 27th day of June, 1904, revoking and canceling liquor tax certificate No. 10,239, issued to Panagioti Nicolya and transferred to Spero Gretes; also from such order upon which the said judgment was entered, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 28th day of July, 1904, denying the appellants’ motion to correct the stenographer’s minutes of the testimony taken herein.
    
      James A. Allen, for the appellants.
    
      Herbert H. Kellogg [Albert O. Briggs with him on the brief], for the respondent.
   Rich, J.:

This is an appeal from an order revoking and canceling liquor tax certificate No. 10,239, issued to Panagioti Nicolya, April 28, 1903, for traffic in liquors at Coney Island, borough of Brooklyn. Proceedings! were instituted by the State Commissioner of Excise, who filed the usual petition in such cases, alleging unlawful sales of liquor at the certificated premises, and the court, at Special Term, upon abunuant evidence decided that Panagioti Mcolya had violated the Liquor Tax Law, on said premises on Sunday, July 19, 1903, and on Sunday, July 26, 1903, by selling whisky; and that after the violation of the Liquor Tax Law by Nicolya, on the 14th day of August, 1903, he had presented to the special deputy commissioner of excise for the borough of Brooklyn a petition praying for the transfer of the said liquor tax certificate to the respondent Spero Gretes, in which petition he falsely and fraudulently stated that he had not violated any of the provisions of the Liquor Tax' Law, whereupon the said special deputy commissioner of excise, having no notice of the violation!, indorsed his consent to the transfer upon said certificate. The respondent Gretes ¡thereupon filed his application and bond, pursuant to section 27 of the Liquor Tax Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 112, as amd. by Laws of 1897, chap. 312), and the certificate was transferred to him.

It is claimed on the part of the respondent Gretes that he had no knowledge of these violations and that the certificate having-been transferred to him in good faith, with the consent of the special deputy commissioner of excise, for value and without notice to him of any violation, it cannot be canceled in his hands for violations alleged to have been made by Mcolya.

In the first place, the special deputy commissioner of excise had no information of the violation of the law complained of; all he had learned upon the subject was that contained in the affidavit of Mcolya, and there was no obligation upon Mm to impart information he did not possess. (Matter of Cullinan [Davidoff Cert.], 87 App. Div. 47, 49.) He had no discretion, and only performed the duty imposed upon him by the statute. It is unfortunate! for the respondent Gretes that he did not know of these violations before taking this certificate, when he might have taken a new certificate which would have been free from taint. The statute (§ 27, as amd. supra) provides that no such sale, assignment or transfer shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law, nor permitted by any holder of a certificate who shall have been convicted, or be under indictment, or against which, or whom a complaint under oath shall have been made, and be pending, for violating the provisions of the act, or who shall have violated any provision of the Liquor Tax Law.

In our opinion it is immaterial what knowledge Gretes had of the violation of the Liquor Tax Law by Nicolya; the certificate was taken subject to the condition of forfeiture. To hold otherwise would enable the holder of a- certificate, who had violated the law, to preserve the value of his certificate by finding an innocent purchaser, which would be contrary to the clearly expressed intention of the statute.

The judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Hirschberg, P. J., Bartlett, Jenks and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Order revoking license and judgment thereon affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order denying motion to correct minutes dismissed, without costs.  