Matter of Agoglia v. Mulrooney

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Agoglia v. Mulrooney

182 N.E. 84, 259 N.Y. 462, 1932 N.Y. LEXIS 971

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 19, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 182 N.E. 84 (Matter of Agoglia v. Mulrooney) 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

Matter of Agoglia v. Mulrooney, 182 N.E. 84, 259 N.Y. 462, 1932 N.Y. LEXIS 971 (N.Y. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

. Local Law No. 12, enacted in 1931 by the Municipal Assembly of the city of New York, prohibits the operation of a public dance hall or a cabaret without a license issuable by the Police Commissioner. No such license shall be issued unless, among other things, the place sought to be licensed “ in the opinion of the Police Commissioner is a safe and proper place to be used as a public dance hall or a cabaret.” It is not without significance that the law in question transferred jurisdiction over the issuance of dance hall and cabaret licenses from the Department of Licenses to the Police Commissioner.

Petitioner herein applied for a cabaret license. The Police Commissioner refused to issue it because in his opinion the place sought to be licensed was not a safe and proper one to be used as a cabaret. This refusal has been held by the Special Term and by the Appellate Division to have been capricious and unreasonable. The Police Commissioner has been commanded by a peremp *465 tory order of mandamus forthwith to issue and deliver the hcense apphed for.

We learn from the petition itself that in' the immediate neighborhood of the petitioner’s premises there are four pool rooms in operation; also that within a few hundred feet is located a public school. The Superintendent of Schools in a letter to the Police Commissioner opposes issuance of the license because of the propinquity of the proposed cabaret to the school. The decision of the Police Commissioner was based upon a consideration of those facts as well as upon records of the Police Department and certain reports received through regular police channels, the exact purport of which does not appear. Under such circumstances the refusal of the Commissioner of Police to issue the license can hardly be said to have been capricious or unreasonable. The petitioner has, therefore, shown no clear legal right, and the Commissioner’s opinion, rather than that of the courts, must control. (People ex rel. Schwab v. Grant, 126 N. Y. 473, 481; People ex rel. Empire City Trotting Club v. State Racing Comm., 190 N. Y. 31, 33; Matter of Ormsby v. Bell, 218 N. Y. 212, 216; Lang’s Creamery, Inc., v. City of Niagara Falls, 251 N. Y. 343, 346, 347.)

The orders should be reversed and the motion for peremptory mandamus denied, with costs in ah courts.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

. Local Law No. 12, enacted in 1931 by the Municipal Assembly of the city of New York, prohibits the operation of a public dance hall or a cabaret without a license issuable by the Police Commissioner. No such license shall be issued unless, among other things, the place sought to be licensed “ in the opinion of the Police Commissioner is a safe and proper place to be used as a public dance hall or a cabaret.” It is not without significance that the law in question transferred jurisdiction over the issuance of dance hall and cabaret licenses from the Department of Licenses to the Police Commissioner.

Petitioner herein applied for a cabaret license. The Police Commissioner refused to issue it because in his opinion the place sought to be licensed was not a safe and proper one to be used as a cabaret. This refusal has been held by the Special Term and by the Appellate Division to have been capricious and unreasonable. The Police Commissioner has been commanded by a peremp *465 tory order of mandamus forthwith to issue and deliver the hcense apphed for.

We learn from the petition itself that in' the immediate neighborhood of the petitioner’s premises there are four pool rooms in operation; also that within a few hundred feet is located a public school. The Superintendent of Schools in a letter to the Police Commissioner opposes issuance of the license because of the propinquity of the proposed cabaret to the school. The decision of the Police Commissioner was based upon a consideration of those facts as well as upon records of the Police Department and certain reports received through regular police channels, the exact purport of which does not appear. Under such circumstances the refusal of the Commissioner of Police to issue the license can hardly be said to have been capricious or unreasonable. The petitioner has, therefore, shown no clear legal right, and the Commissioner’s opinion, rather than that of the courts, must control. (People ex rel. Schwab v. Grant, 126 N. Y. 473, 481; People ex rel. Empire City Trotting Club v. State Racing Comm., 190 N. Y. 31, 33; Matter of Ormsby v. Bell, 218 N. Y. 212, 216; Lang’s Creamery, Inc., v. City of Niagara Falls, 251 N. Y. 343, 346, 347.)

The orders should be reversed and the motion for peremptory mandamus denied, with costs in ah courts.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 N.E. 84, 259 N.Y. 462, 1932 N.Y. LEXIS 971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-agoglia-v-mulrooney-ny-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack