
    Fourth Appellate Department,
    July, 1902.
    Reported. 75 App. Div. 609.
    In the Matter of the Application of Herman K. Blanchard, et al. Respondents, for an Order Revolting the Liquor Tax Certificate of John Sweeney, Appellant.
    P. F. King, for appellant.
    The premises having been used for the sale of liquors on March 23, 1896, no consents were necessary. Abandonment for such use will not be presumed, unless intent of owner is clearly established. (Matter of Hawkins, 165 N. Y. 188.) Suspension from June, 1896, to October 1897, was temporary, and enforced against the will of the landlord and tenant. (People ex rel. Sweeney v. Lammerts, 18 Misc. 341; Matter of Loper, 53 App. Div. 576; Matter of Moulton, 59 App. Div. 25.) Premises have been used continuously within the meaning of the statute. (Matter of Kessler, 163 N. Y. 205.)
    
      T. A. Devereux, for respondent.
    The sale of liquor was abandoned in 1896, as held in the certiorari proceeding. (People ex rel. Sweeney v. Lammerts, 18 Misc. 341, affd. by App. Div.), and is now binding on the defendant. (Matter of R. R. Co., 19 Hun, 314; Freer v. Stotenbur, 2 Abb. Dec. 189; Castle v. Noyes, 14 N. Y. 329; Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y. 511.) From 1896 to 1898, the barroom, fully equipped, was vacant, but the rest of the former hotel and saloon building was used as a dwelling. The abandonment is clearly proved. (Matter of Kessler, 163 N. Y. 203; Matter of Hawkins, 165 N. Y. 188; Matter of Lyman, 34 App. Div. 389; Matter of Lyman, 29 App. Div. 390; Matter of Flanagan, 49 App. Div. 99.)
    Consents were necessary, and those filed July 18, 1898, were insufficient. (Matter of Tonatio, 49 App. Div. 84; Matter of Lyman, 34 Misc. 296; Matter of Lyman, 24 Misc. 552; Matter of McVicker, 21 Misc. 383; Matter of Vail, 38 Misc. 392; Matter of Sherry, 25 Misc. 361; Matter of Lyman, 33 Misc. 349.)
   Order affirmed with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.  