City of New York v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.

73 Misc. 2d 864, 342 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2030

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 13, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 73 Misc. 2d 864 (City of New York v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of New York v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc., 73 Misc. 2d 864, 342 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Where a milk wholesaler and distributor maintains in its storage area, containers of milk, imprinted with the date and the name of the packer, which, when selected on a random basis from other similarly marked containers, are determined to be improperly labeled, there has been proven a prima facie case of these containers being offered for sale within the meaning of sections 833-16.0 and 833-22.0 of the Administration Code of the City of New York (see Wickham v. Levine, 47 Misc 2d 1, 5, affd. 24 A D 2d 1035, affd. 23 N Y 2d 923). Accordingly, it was improper to dismiss the complaint at' the close of plaintiff’s case, on the grounds that there was no proof that defendant intended to sell the milk or that the sale would take place in the City of New York. It then became incumbent upon defendant to prove that the containers at issue were to be treated specially and not offered for sale (see People v. Kibler, 106 N. Y. 321, 324).

The plaintiff has the right to recover the penalties provided by the statute (City of New York v. Steen, 233 N. Y. 595) and, in view of the language of the statute providing for a penalty for “ each and every * * * offense ”, cumulative penalties inay be recovered (see People v. Spencer, 201 N. Y. 105, 109).

[866]*866The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Fine and Frank, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Where a milk wholesaler and distributor maintains in its storage area, containers of milk, imprinted with the date and the name of the packer, which, when selected on a random basis from other similarly marked containers, are determined to be improperly labeled, there has been proven a prima facie case of these containers being offered for sale within the meaning of sections 833-16.0 and 833-22.0 of the Administration Code of the City of New York (see Wickham v. Levine, 47 Misc 2d 1, 5, affd. 24 A D 2d 1035, affd. 23 N Y 2d 923). Accordingly, it was improper to dismiss the complaint at' the close of plaintiff’s case, on the grounds that there was no proof that defendant intended to sell the milk or that the sale would take place in the City of New York. It then became incumbent upon defendant to prove that the containers at issue were to be treated specially and not offered for sale (see People v. Kibler, 106 N. Y. 321, 324).

The plaintiff has the right to recover the penalties provided by the statute (City of New York v. Steen, 233 N. Y. 595) and, in view of the language of the statute providing for a penalty for “ each and every * * * offense ”, cumulative penalties inay be recovered (see People v. Spencer, 201 N. Y. 105, 109).

[866]*866The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Fine and Frank, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 Misc. 2d 864, 342 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-dairylea-cooperative-inc-nyappterm-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack