Opinion
July 5, 1961
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Richmond, held by a City Magistrate, rendered February 17, 1961, convicting defendant, after trial, of operating an unregistered motor vehicle upon the public highways in this State, in violation of former subdivision 1 of section 11 (now § 401, subd. 1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and sentencing him to pay a fine of $25 or to be imprisoned for five days. Defendant paid the fine. The defendant was tried upon an information charging that he violated the statute in that, on May 11, 1960, he operated on a public highway in Richmond County, a motor vehicle not registered and licensed in New York State. At the trial the facts charged in the information were not disputed, nor is there any dispute as to the following facts: Defendant was employed as a route salesman by Fischer Baking Company, a New Jersey Corporation. In the course of his employment he delivered fresh bakery products from his employer's plant in New Jersey to various stores in Richmond County, and returned stale bakery products from these stores to his employer's New Jersey plant. No products were transferred from one store to another within this State, nor were the stale products unloaded at any point in this State. The truck which defendant used to make these deliveries and returns, was owned by his employer; it was garaged in New Jersey; and it bore New Jersey license plates. Judgment reversed on the law, information dismissed and fine remitted. The findings of fact in the court below are affirmed. In our opinion, the vehicle operated by defendant under the circumstances disclosed was exempt from registration in this State. It was owned by a resident of New Jersey in which State "like exemptions and privileges are granted to motor vehicles * * * duly registered under the laws of and owned by residents of this state" (Vehicle and Traffic Law, former § 51, subd. 1, [now § 250, subd. 1]; N.J.S.A., 39:3-15). The vehicle was not operated to transport property for profit "from one point in this state to another point in this state" within the meaning of former subdivision 3 of section 51 (now § 250, subd. 3) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The purpose and intent of the statute (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 250, subd. 3) was to require New York registration on all vehicles used in intrastate commercial transportation of persons or property, and not to require such registration in the case of vehicles, otherwise exempt from registration by virtue of reciprocity laws of other States, engaged only in interstate transportation. If the Legislature had intended to require the registration in this State of all vehicles transporting property or persons for hire or profit within this State, whether engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce, it could have so provided. That it did not so intend is indicated by the use of the words "from one point in this state to another point in this state", a provision which would have been entirely unnecessary to the expression of such an intent. The cases relied on by the People and the court below ( People v. Learnard, 305 N.Y. 495; People v. Dantschisch, 153 N.Y.S.2d 519) are distinguishable on their facts. Nolan, P.J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.