House of Spirits v. Doyle

5 Citing cases

  1. J.A.J. Liq. Store v. N Y Liq. Auth

    64 N.Y.2d 504 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    The Committee's Final Report stated: "Since it seems patent that the mass of small retailers are unable to compete with the large volume outlets that have emerged, most appear doomed barring the adoption of some formula that will permit the co-existence of both types of outlets. This leaves New York's consumers facing the future prospect of being relatively poorly served only by mass merchandisers" (NY State Legis, Senate Excise Committee, Final Report of the Senate Excise Committee, April 5, 1971, at 29-30, as quoted in House of Spirits v Doyle, 72 Misc.2d 1036, 1040). Although these practices produced temporary price reductions to the consumer, but the benefits could prove transitory, threatening to drive small retailers out of business and consolidating control of the market in the hands of a relatively few mass distributors who could then dictate prices to the ultimate injury of consumers and market competition generally.

  2. J.A.J. Liquor Store, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

    102 A.D.2d 240 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    A two-pronged test for determining the applicability of antitrust immunity has been established: "First, the challenged restraint must be 'one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy'; second, the policy must be 'actively supervised' by the State itself" ( California Liq. Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97, 105, supra, citing Lafayette v. Louisiana Power Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 410). The New York resale price maintenance system for liquor clearly satisfies the first prong of this test, since the State's policy of fostering and promoting temperance in the consumption of alcoholic beverages and in promoting the orderly sale and distribution of liquor is both clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed in the statute itself (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, ยง 101-bb, subd 1; see, also, House of Spirits v Doyle, 72 Misc.2d 1036, affd 43 A.D.2d 880). However, it is equally clear that the State has failed to satisfy the second prong of the test, because it does not actively supervise its resale price maintenance system.

  3. House of Spirits, Inc. v. Doyle

    43 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

    The mandatory 12% minimum markup on retail sales of liquor is attacked by plaintiff on several grounds. It contends on this appeal that the statute, having no relationship to the health, welfare and safety of the public, constitutes an unreasonable exercise of the police power; that the 12% markup violates due process because it has no relationship to a liquor retailer's actual average minimum overhead; and that, since the minimum retail price is fixed solely by the retailer's supplier, the statute is discriminatory and promotes unfair competition. These points have been properly determined in a thoroughly outlined and well-reasoned opinion by Mr. Justice Hughes at Special Term ( 72 Misc.2d 1036). Accordingly, we affirm on that opinion.

  4. People v. Rolle

    90 Misc. 2d 392 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1977)

    The appropriate rule was succinctly stated in Matter of Van Berkel v Power ( 16 N.Y.2d 37, 40) that legislative enactments are: "supported by a presumption of validity so strong as to demand of those who attack them a demonstration of invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt". (See, also, People v Pagnotta, 25 N.Y.2d 333; People v Morehouse, 80 Misc.2d 406; People v Farr, 80 Misc.2d 250; People v Amber, 76 Misc.2d 267; People v Einhorn, 75 Misc.2d 183; House of Spirits v Doyle, 72 Misc.2d 1036.) Having said this, how do we then determine if the defendant meets this heavy burden.

  5. Urowsky v. Bd. of Regents

    76 Misc. 2d 187 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1973)   Cited 5 times

    The most cogent reason for the restriction is to foster the policy of encouraging the continued existence of independent local drugstores by the prevention of destructive competition through advertising (cf. House of Spirits v. Doyle, 72 Misc.2d 1036, 1040). It may be argued that the public interest would best be served if purchasers may avail themselves of the services of local and neighborhood drugstores since these often provide services not available at so-called discount drugstores; moreover, local stores are convenient to the consumer and are often open for longer hours than discount stores.