People by Lefkowitz v. Disbrok Trading Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1972
• Citation: 71 Misc.2d 750,336 N.Y.S.2d 762
• Parties: Application of the PEOPLE of the State of New York, By Louis J. LEFKOWITZ, Attorney General of the State of New York, Petitioner, For an Order enjoining and restraining DISBROK TRADING COMPANY, INC., pursuant to Section 63, subdivision 12 of the Executive Law from carrying on, conducting and transacting its business in a repeated and persistent illegal manner, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 762

336 N.Y.S.2d 762

71 Misc.2d 750

Application of the PEOPLE of the State of New York, By Louis

J. LEFKOWITZ, Attorney General of the State of New York,

Petitioner, For an Order enjoining and restraining DISBROK

TRADING COMPANY, INC., pursuant to Section 63, subdivision

12 of the Executive Law from carrying on, conducting and

transacting its business in a repeated and persistent

illegal manner, Respondent.

Supreme Court, New York County.

Oct. 5, 1972.

Greenwald, Kovner & Goldsmith, New York City, for respondent.

Philip Weinberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., James P. Corcoran, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel, for petitioner.

SIDNEY H. ASCH, Justice:

The Attorney General moves, pursuant to Section 63, subdivision 12 of the Executive Law for an injunction restraining defendant from engaging in the illegal sale or offering for sale in the State of New York of any part of the skin or body, whether raw or manufactured, of Alligators, Caiman or Crocodile of the Order of Crocodylia, or articles made therefrom, and costs pursuant to CPLR 8303(a) in the amount of $2,000.00. Section 358a of the Agricultural and Markets Law provides as is pertinent herein,

'1. No part of the skin or body, whether raw or manufactured, of the following species of wild animals or the animal itself may be sold or offered for sale by any individual, firm, corporation, association or partnership within the state of New York after the effective date of this section: Alligators, Caiman or Crocodile of the Order Crocodylia . . .'

The petitioner claims on the basis of its investigation that respondent is selling and offering for sale certain of the prohibited commodities, in violation of the hereinbefore quoted statute. Respondent's manager during the petitioner's investigation stated under oath that the defendant gets in touch with its European and Asiatic customers through its office in New York and that thereafter the goods are shipped from either a 'foreign trade zone' or a 'bonded warehouse' to said customers. Respondent's manager also testified that all of respondent's business is really conducted from New York. Respondent has not submitted any opposing affidavits and relies solely on its Memorandum of Law in opposition to petitioner's application. The statements of fact contained therein are of no probative value.

From the submitted papers it is evident that the respondent is shedding crocodile tears. Its New York office is the moving force in bringing the subject...