Smith v. Pope

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Pope

72 A.D.2d 913, 422 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14214

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 16, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 913 (Smith v. Pope) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Pope, 72 A.D.2d 913, 422 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The contract for the proprietary operation by plaintiff of defendants’ restaurant, including the use of defendants’ liquor license, was against public policy (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, §§ 2, 64, subd 4; §§ 100, 111), and hence was void (see Schley v Andrews; 225 NY 110; Duval v Wellman, 124 NY 156; 15 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], § 1763). Special Term erred, however, in stating that the contract was, therefore, malum in se, words of art which in law lead to a denial of relief to either party (Schley v Andrews, supra; Irwin v Curie, 171 NY 409; Tracy v Talmage, 14 NY 162; Sturm v Truby, 245 App Div 357). We conclude, instead, that the contract was malum prohibitum (O’Connor v O’Connor, 263 App Div 820); and that in the circumstances of this case the trial court properly considered the relative culpabilities of the parties (see Irwin v Curie, supra; Pratt v Short, 79 NY 437; Tracy v Talmage, supra, pp 185-188, 191; 15 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], § 1789) and directed the return of moneys advanced by plaintiff to defendant under the contract. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—void contract.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The contract for the proprietary operation by plaintiff of defendants’ restaurant, including the use of defendants’ liquor license, was against public policy (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, §§ 2, 64, subd 4; §§ 100, 111), and hence was void (see Schley v Andrews; 225 NY 110; Duval v Wellman, 124 NY 156; 15 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], § 1763). Special Term erred, however, in stating that the contract was, therefore, malum in se, words of art which in law lead to a denial of relief to either party (Schley v Andrews, supra; Irwin v Curie, 171 NY 409; Tracy v Talmage, 14 NY 162; Sturm v Truby, 245 App Div 357). We conclude, instead, that the contract was malum prohibitum (O’Connor v O’Connor, 263 App Div 820); and that in the circumstances of this case the trial court properly considered the relative culpabilities of the parties (see Irwin v Curie, supra; Pratt v Short, 79 NY 437; Tracy v Talmage, supra, pp 185-188, 191; 15 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], § 1789) and directed the return of moneys advanced by plaintiff to defendant under the contract. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—void contract.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 913, 422 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-pope-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack