People Ex Rel. Stepski v. Harford

36 N.E.2d 670, 286 N.Y. 477, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 1467
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 29, 1941
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 36 N.E.2d 670 (People Ex Rel. Stepski v. Harford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People Ex Rel. Stepski v. Harford, 36 N.E.2d 670, 286 N.Y. 477, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 1467 (N.Y. 1941).

Opinion

Conway, J.

The District Attorney of Orange county appeals as of right under subdivision 1 of section 588 of the Civil Practice Act from an order of the Appellate Division unanimously affirming an order of the Orange County Special Term sustaining a writ of habeas corpus and discharging the relator from the custody .of the sheriff.

The learned Special Term justice said: “ This writ of habeas corpus originally returned in the County Court has been transferred to the Supreme Court informally and a ruling requested as to the constitutionality of section 7-14.4 of the Plumbing Code of the City of Newburgh, which provides that only licensed'plumbers will be permitted to alter, repair or make connections to any part of the plumbing system. No other question has been considered or is decided.” (174 Misc. Rep. 1082, 1083.)

The relator was charged with violating a section of the Plumbing Code of Newburgh which had been adopted by the Board of Health and the Board of Plumbers and Plumbing of that municipality under the authority conferred by article 4 of the General City Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 21). The section reads as follows:

“ 7-14.4. Repairs. None but licensed master plumbers will be permitted to alter, repair or make connections to any part of the plumbing system. Each master plumber shall submit a monthly report of all work done.”

When the case of People ex rel. Nechamcus v. Warden (144 N. Y. 529) was before this court, we held that the act of the Legislature, which is now substantially embodied in General City Law, sections 40-a, 44, 45, creating boards for the examination of plumbers, empowering the boards to examine those seeking to engage in the trade, business or calling of plumbing as master or employing plumbers and making it unlawful for any person to engage in business as a master plumber without first obtaining a certificate of *480 competency from such board, was constitutional. We said that that act was a proper exercise of the police power of the State, was not a deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law and was not a denial to the relator there, a master plumber, of the equal protection of the laws of the State. (U. S. Const. Fourteenth Amendment; State Const, art. 1, § 6.)

It was said in People v. Gillson (109 N. Y. 389, 401, 402), and approved in the Nechamcus case: “ * * * it is generally for the Legislature to determine what laws and regulations are needed to protect the public health and serve the public comfort and safety, and if its measures are calculated, intended, convenient or appropriate to accomplish such ends, the exercise of its discretion is not the subject of judicial review. But those measures must have some relation to these ends. Courts must be able to see, upon a perusal of the enactment, that there is some fair, just and reasonable connection between it and the ends above mentioned. Unless such relation exist the enactment cannot be upheld as an exercise of the police power.”

The constitutionality of the statute was upheld upon the ground that it was merely a restriction upon the right of master plumbers to employ men to work for them in their business thus assuring the public that the master plumber would exercise care in the selection of his employees and be competent to see and correct their faults and omissions. Under that act a master plumber and a journeyman plumber could each carry on his trade but only one with a certificate of competency could be a master plumber and employ others.

With the passage of time the Legislature apparently determined that a wider power of regulation of plumbing as a business was necessary for the protection of public health and safety. In 1929, by chapter 677 of the laws of that year, the Legislature amended the General City Law, section 53, so as to read as follows, the new portion being italicized:

§ 53. Plumbing and drainage to be executed according to rules. The plumbing and drainage of all buildings, both *481 public and private, in each of the cities of this state, shall be performed by persons authorized under the rules and regulations adopted by the local board of examining plumbers, in conjunction with the board of health for plumbing and drainage, and all plumbing and drainage work shall be executed in compliance with such rules and regulations. And all repairs and alterations in the plumbing and drainage of all buildings heretofore constructed shall also be performed and executed in accordance with such rulés and regulations; but this section shall not be construed to repeal any existing provision of law requiring plans for the plumbing and drainage of new buildings to be filed with any local board of health and be previously approved in writing by such board of health and be executed in accordance therewith, except that in case of any conflict with such plans, rules and regulations of the board of examiners, the latter shall govern.”

Prior to the amendment the following words had been in the statute instead of those italicized supra: “ shall be executed in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted by the local board of examining plumbers, in conjunction with the board of health for plumbing and drainage.”

By the amendment the Legislature specifically provided that the plumbing andfdrainage of all buildings in each city of the State should not only be executed, as theretofore, in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted by the city board but authorized the local board of examining plumbers, in conjunction with the board of health for plumbing and drainage, to adopt rules and regulations specifying those who should perform the plumbing and drainage work. The Plumbing Code of the city of New-burgh, i. e., the rules and regulations, provide that the work which the relator is charged with doing may be done only by licensed master plumbers. The Code defines plumbing (§ 7-2.4) and the term master plumber (§ 7-2.1). This-latter section reads as follows: “ The term ‘ master plumber ’ as used in connection with this code shall be taken to mean a person who holds a master plumber’s certificate of com *482 petency obtained after having successfully passed an examination given by the examining Board of Plumbers of this City, and who engages in the business of plumbing on his own account or as a bona fide member of a firm or corporation under the provisions of Section 45-a of the General City Law, and is registered with the Board of Health and has an established place in the City of Newburgh from where he conducts and operates his business, and has his name and metal sign conspicuously displayed at said place of business "that is easily read by the public.”

The following sections are also material to our inquiry:

7-1.1. Qualification, Registration, Examinations and Fees.

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

Related

Glory R Constr. Inc. v. 651923 18 Ave LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 50313(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2026)
Fisher Mechanical Corp. v. Gateway Demolition Corp.
247 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Kaiser v. State of New Hampshire
D. New Hampshire, 1996
Opn. No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1992
Informal Opinion No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1984
Tesoriero v. Examining Board of Plumbers
36 Misc. 2d 412 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Local Bd. of Health of Berkeley Tp. v. Johnson
180 A.2d 156 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners
368 P.2d 101 (California Supreme Court, 1962)
Spielvogel v. Ford
136 N.E.2d 856 (New York Court of Appeals, 1956)
People v. Rodenbach
204 Misc. 905 (New York County Courts, 1953)
Schroeder v. Binks
113 N.E.2d 169 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1953)
City of New Rochelle v. Burke
43 N.E.2d 463 (New York Court of Appeals, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 N.E.2d 670, 286 N.Y. 477, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 1467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-stepski-v-harford-ny-1941.