182 N.E. 16 | NY | 1932
The petition and the opposing affidavit both allege that respondent, which operates as a dentist, is a corporation. By judicial dictum, a corporation may not practice dentistry (Hannon v. Siegel-Cooper Co.,
Section 51 of the Education Law confers upon the Regents of the University of the State of New York the power to supervise the practice of dentistry, and section 1313, subdivision B-4, thereof provides that legally incorporated dental corporations existing and in operation prior to January first, nineteen hundred and sixteen, may continue so operating and that "their advertising shall be subject to the rules of the Regents." Among the rules promulgated by the Regents and stated therein as considered to be unprofessional and objectionable in the *363 practice of dentistry are: "1. Any advertising statements of a character tending to deceive or mislead the public. * * * 4. Advertising by means of large display, glaring, illuminated or flickering light signs."
The State's power to establish reasonable standards for admission to practice a profession is undoubted. (Dent v. WestVirginia,
In issuing permits under section 215 of the municipal ordinance, the City Clerk is not intended invariably to act as an automaton. If a permit may lawfully be issued, he is the officer designated for that purpose. Here is an instance where the word "shall" ought not to be interpreted in a mandatory sense. (Matter of Thurber,
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court.
POUND, Ch. J., CRANE, HUBBS and CROUCH, JJ., concur; LEHMAN and KELLOGG, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.
Ordered accordingly. *365