
    Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,
    October, 1897.
    Reported. 21 Mise. 504.
    In the Matter of the Application of Ruland.
    1. Liquor Tax Law—Consents—Dwellings occupied exclusively as such.
    The provisions of section 17 of the Liquor Tax Law, requiring an applicant for a license to procure the consent of the owners of “at least two-thirds” of the “building or buildings occupied exclusively for a dwelling” within a 200-foot limit of the proposed saloon, include, in making an estimate of the number of consents required, vacant dwellings designed exclusively for occupation as dwelling-houses and also a house where a dressmaker, displaying no sign, does sewing; but exclude a building used mainly as a grocery store.
    2. Same—Measurement of 200-foot limit.
    The statutory direction that the 200-foot limit shall be determined by measurement, “in a straight line,” between those entrances of the saloon building and of the dwelling which are nearest together, means the length of a straight line, running from one entrance to another, regardless of the intervening obstructions.
    Application by a citizen for the revocation of a liquor tax certificate, pursuant to section 28 of the Liquor Tax Law, on the ground that it was falsely stated in the application that the owners of two-thirds of the dwellings, within two hundred feet, had consented.
    C. A. Haviland, for petitioner.
    J. W. Eidgway, opposed.
   Gaynor, J.

There were at the time of the application for the liquor tax certificate twenty-one buildings ordinarily occupied exclusively for dwellings, within the two hundred feet limit. This leaves out 288 Greene avenue, Avhich is the entrance to the rear of the building 378 Classon avenue, mainly used as a grocery store. It includes 386 Classon avenue, which is a boardinghouse. Two of said dwellings, viz., 401 and 370 Classon avenue, were vacant at the time of such application. The tenant of 303 Greene avenue is a dressmaker by trade, and does more or less sewing in the house, but has no sign out. This does not make it partly used for business. A mechanic may do work in his dwelling for others without making it no longer exclusively a dwelling. The statute requires the applicant to get the consent of the owners of “ at least two-thirds ” of the “ building or buildings occupied exclusively for a dAvelling ” within the two hundred feet limit. I construe this to include buildings constructed and meant for such exclusive occupation as dwellings. In the case of a new street or block of dwellings not yet let, I do not think the owners of such dwellings may be ignored by an applicant for a liquor tax certificate. That might enable such a certificate to be obtained without any such consent. I therefore include the vacant dwellings.

The applicant obtained the consent of the oAvners of thirteen of the said twenty-one dwellings, and thus falls short of two-thirds. The grocery-store building has to be omitted.

The statute requires the íavo hundred feet limit to be deter mined by measurement “ in a straight line ” between the entrances of the saloon building and the dwelling which are nearest together. Measurements along the ground to the foot of the stoop, and then at an angle up the stoop to the front door, would in the case of two dwellings put them outside the two hundred feet limit. I do not think such a measurement is in a straight line within the meaning of the statute. I think the actual length of a straight line stretched from one entrance to the other, regarded as running through all obstructions in the course, is the measurement required. The application has to be granted.

Application granted.  