| N.Y. App. Div. | Dec 14, 1906
Lead Opinion
The action is brought pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 201 of the Public Health Law (Laws of 1893, chap. 661) as amended by chapter 667 of the Laws of 1900 to recover penalties for alleged violations of said act. Five causes, of action are set forth in the complaint. Each alleges the violation of the statute by the defendant as the proprietor of a store at Inwood-, in the town of Hempstead, Nassau co.unty, N. Y., in selling or permitting to be sold at retail, without the supervision of a licensed pharmacist, drugs arid medicines of a nature and description not permitted by law to be sold without such supervision. On the 14th day of August, 1906, the answer of the defendant' was served by mail, together with a demand in jwriting, that the trial of the action be "changed from the county of New York to the county of Nassau, that being the proper county for the trial of the issues. Upon the conceded facts each of the causes of'action arose in the county of Nassau, and by section 983 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Legislature has commanded that such an action be tried in the county .where the cause of action arose. The impropriety of compelling a party to be tried for a penalty in any county other than that in which the cause . of action arose is manifest. It is claimed, however, that the defendant has lpst his right ,to a trial in the county in 'which he resides and in which it is claimed he committed the offenses' by his failure to make the motion, for a change of venue within the time prescribed by section 986 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The demand having been served by mail, the attorney for the plaintiff, by virtue of the provisions of section 798 of. the Code of Civil Procedure, was entitled to
In the Lesser case the motion for a change of place of trial to the proper county was made by the defendant within ten days after the expiration of the ten days allowed to the attorney for the plaintiff by reason of the demand having been served by mail to consent to a change of the place of trial, and it is evident that the statement of the court in that case that the defendant also had double time within which to make the motion was either inadvertent or obiter dictum. In the Binder case the court merely followed the inadvertent or obiter remarks of the court in" the Lesser case without discussion. It is urged that the rule is erroneously stated in those cases for the reason that it was the manifest intention of the Legislature, by section 798, where a notice or paper, other than a notice of trial, is served by mail, to give double time to the adverse party only. There is force in this suggestion, and it is evident from the prevailing opinion in Schlesinger v. Borough Bank (112 A.D. 121" court="N.Y. App. Div." date_filed="1906-03-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/schlesinger-v-borough-bank-5198390?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5198390">112 App. Div. 121), decided by the same court in which the Binder case was decided, that the correctness of the decision in the Binder case is doubted. The decision in the Schlesinger case is hot in point. It was there merely decided that where an answer to which the plaintiff might reply is served by mail, since the plaintiff would have double time within which to serve a reply, the defendant has double time within which to serve an amended answer as of course, by virtue of the pro
It follows, therefore, that the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for change of place of trial granted, without costs.
Patterson, Clarke and Scott, JJ., concurred; Ingraham, J., dissented.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent. I know of no public policy which requires an action for' a penalty to l?e tried in the county in which the parties reside rather than in an adjoining county. The defendant had the right to have the place of trial changed to the proper county, but to enforce that right he was required to serve the notice required by section 986 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and when he failed to serve such notice he lost his right to have the place of trial Changed as a matter of right.
I think it clear that in this case'—as appears to be conceded by the prevailing opinion — the notice was not served in time. Undoubtedly the time within .which the plaintiff was bound to serve the stipulation to change the place of trial was double the time required where the demand was personally served; but when that double time had expired, the defendant’s attorney was required to move within ten days thereafter. As the defendant has lost his right to move as a matter of right, the question as to whether the place of trial should be changed as a matter of discretion was not
I think, therefore, the order should be affirmed.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. Order tiled.