People v. Perretta

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: POUND
• Citation: 253 N.Y. 305,171 N.E. 72
• Parties: PEOPLE v. PERRETTA.
• Decision Date: 08 April 1930

253 N.Y. 305
171 N.E. 72

PEOPLE
v.
PERRETTA.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 8, 1930.

Action by the People against Antonio Perretta. Judgment of the Trial Term (134 Misc. Rep. 652, 236 N. Y. S. 293) entered upon an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was affirmed by the Appellate Division (228 App. Div. 420, 239 N. Y. S. 63), and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed, and motion to dismiss complaint denied.

[253 N.Y. 305]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth department.
[253 N.Y. 306]Hamilton Ward, Atty. Gen. (George L. Flanders, of Albany, Louis B. Shay, of Brockport, and Samuel H. King, of Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Nicholas G. Powers, of Utica, for respondent.

[253 N.Y. 307]POUND, J.

The actions are each brought to recover a penalty of $100 on the ground that defendant carried on the business of conducting a milk gathering station or plant without a license, in violation of section 252 of the Agriculture and Markets Law (Consol. Laws, c. 69).

Each complaint states a cause of action in proper form, but the defendant challenges the constitutionality of the law requiring him to obtain a license on the ground that it denies to him the equal protection of the law, and deprives him of his liberty without due process of law, contrary to the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The act in question prohibits any person or corporation from operating a milk gathering station, manufactory, or plant where milk or cream is received or purchased from producers for sale or resale, or for manufacture, unless licensed by the commissioner of agriculture and markets. The section requires that an applicant for license shall satisfy the commissioner of his character, financial responsibility, and good faith in seeking to operate a milk gathering station or plant, and shall pay a license fee of ten dollars. No license shall be issued unless the [253 N.Y. 308]applicant shall execute and file with the application a bond, or be relieved from filing the same, as provided in the next section. Section 253 of the same act provides that the security required shall be a surety company bond in an amount approved by the commissioner, and shall be conditioned ‘for the faithful compliance by the licensee with the provisions of this chapter, and for the prompt payment of all amounts due to producers for milk or cream sold by them to such licensee, during the license year.’ Section 253 further provides that, upon default by the licensee in the payment of any money due for the purchase of milk or cream, the creditor may file with the commissioner a verified statement of his claim, and, if the same has been reduced to judgment, a transcript of said judgment. The section then provides: ‘Upon default by the licensee in any of the conditions of the bond an action upon the bond shall be brought by the commissioner. All moneys collected upon such bond shall be applied by the commissioner,

[171 N.E. 73]

first, to the payment ratably of all verified claims promptly filed with the commissioner after reasonable notice to present claims arising during the license period in connection with which the bond was given and the balance shall be paid into the state treasury.’ The bond is not required if the commissioner is satisfied from an investigation that the applicant is solvent and possessed of sufficient assets to reasonably assure compensation to probable creditors.

In brief, the law limits the right of persons or corporations to conduct milk gathering stations as defined by the act to those of approved character, financial responsibility, and good faith, licensed by the commissioner for the purpose, after giving an approved bond to secure the prompt payment of all amounts due to producers or, in lieu thereof, satisfying the commissioner of their ability to pay probable creditors.

This act is, in substance, the re-enactment of a former law which was before the court for consideration in [253 N.Y. 309]People v. Beakes Dairy Co., 222 N. Y. 416, 119 N. E. 115, annotated, 3 A. L. R. 1271, and was there upheld as a proper regulation of the reserved power to amend the charters of domestic corporations, expressly reserving the question of the power of the Legislature thus to regulate the business of individuals. A corporation is a person and as such is entitled to the equal protection of the laws (Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U. S. 105, 49 S. Ct. 57, 73 L. Ed. 204), and if the legislation is a competent exercise of legislative power over corporations, it would seem that it is also a proper exercise of such power over individuals. Matter of Mount Sinai Hospital, 250 N. Y. 103, 164 N. E. 871, 62 A. L. R. 564.

The police power is ‘the least limitable of the powers of government.’ District of Columbia v. Brooke, 214 U. S. 138, 149, 29 S. Ct. 560, 563, 53 L. Ed. 941. It extends to all the great public needs. Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 17 S. Ct. 864, 42 L. Ed. 260. The validity of police regulations must depend on the circumstances of each case and the character of the regulation, whether arbitrary or reasonable. A legitimate public purpose may always be served without regard to the...