Smith v. Pope
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—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…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tracy v. . TalmageNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Pratt v. . ShortNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Schley v. . AndrewsNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Irwin v. . CurieNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Duval v. . WellmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pacurib v. VillacruzCivil Court of the City of New York · 1999
- Baliotti v. WalkesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Valiotis v. PsaroudisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. BarryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Cochran v. DellfavaRochester City Court · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.