Home/New York Court of Appeals/Mancini v. McLaughlin

Mancini v. McLaughlin

429 N.E.2d 408, 54 N.Y.2d 860, 444 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3078
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 13, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 429 N.E.2d 408 (Mancini v. McLaughlin) 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
Mancini v. McLaughlin, 429 N.E.2d 408, 54 N.Y.2d 860, 444 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3078 (N.Y. 1981).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the relief sought by the appellants granted, with costs.

Before a court can determine whether an agency acted reasonably in taking a particular action it must find that the agency had authority to act in the first instance. In this case neither section 101-b nor any other section of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law requires that the New York City excise tax or a 20% markup be included in cost, or permits the State Liquor Authority to direct that it be so included. Thus the State Liquor Authority exceeded the authority conferred upon it by statute. Although it appears that the agency’s action is meant as a temporary measure, it may not act in excess of its authority even temporarily.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Gabrielli, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum; Judges JASEN, Jones and Meyer dissent and vote to affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (79 AD2d 649).

Order reversed, etc.

*863 November 24, 1981

Motion by State Liquor Authority for reargument or to amend the remittitur granted in the following respects: (1) The remittitur herein is recalled and, when returned, it will be amended to read as follows: Order reversed, with costs, and the relief sought by the appellants granted to the extent of enjoining respondents from enforcing bulletin 529.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Gabrielli, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum; Judges Jasen, Jones and Meyer dissent and vote to affirm for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (79 AD2d 649).

(2) The memorandum is amended to reflect the above limitation in the relief granted to appellants and by adding the following sentence: “We reach only the question of the authority’s right to adopt mandatory regulations.”

Motion by the State Liquor Authority otherwise denied.

Motions by Peerless Importers, Inc., and Charmers industries, Inc., to appear as amici curiae on the State Liquor Authority’s motion, denied.

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

Related

City of New York v. Wing
727 N.E.2d 860 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)
Jay-Jay Cabaret, Inc. v. State
164 Misc. 2d 673 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
Beer Garden, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
79 N.Y.2d 266 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
324 Liquor Corp. v. McLaughlin
102 A.D.2d 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
324 Liquor Corp. v. McLaughlin
119 Misc. 2d 746 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Metropolitan Package Store Ass'n v. Koch
89 A.D.2d 317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
429 N.E.2d 408, 54 N.Y.2d 860, 444 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancini-v-mclaughlin-ny-1981.