Admiral Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Liquor Authority
| Decision Date | 23 February 1984 |
| Citation | 61 N.Y.2d 858,473 N.Y.S.2d 969,462 N.E.2d 146 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 462 N.E.2d 146, 1984-1 Trade Cases P 65,965 In the Matter of ADMIRAL WINE & LIQUOR CO., Also Known as Admiral Wine Merchants, Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, Appellant-Respondent. |
The order of the Appellate Division, 89 A.D.2d 522, 452 N.Y.S.2d 213, should be modified, with costs, by reinstating the State Liquor Authority's findings with respect to charge No. 2 and otherwise affirmed. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
Subdivision 3 of section 101-b of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law does not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act (Battipaglia v. New York State Liq. Auth., --- F.Supp. ---- [SDNY-1982] ). The Appellate Division's reliance on Matter of Mezzetti Assoc. v. State Liq. Auth., 51 N.Y.2d 761, 432 N.Y.S.2d 372, 411 N.E.2d 791 and California Liq. Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97, 100 S.Ct. 937, 63 L.Ed.2d 233 is misplaced because the statutes found to be invalid in those cases established a price maintenance scheme. Subdivision 3 of section 101-b, on the other hand, is a price-posting statute, which simply requires the dealer to file with the State, on a monthly basis, a list of the prices the dealer himself has decided to charge for his products during that period with provision for a downward modification of that price. Subdivision 3 of section 101-b does not authorize anyone to determine retail prices for wine, nor does it bind other wholesalers as to the prices which they may charge their dealers.
Having concluded that there is no irreconcilable conflict between the State statute and the Sherman Act, we also find no merit to appellant's argument that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Battipaglia v. New York State Liquor Authority, 1381
...of a challenge to subdivision 3 of section 101-b apparently identical to that made here. Admiral Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Liquor Authority, 61 N.Y.2d 858, 473 N.Y.S.2d 969, 462 N.E.2d 146 (1984), modifying 89 A.D.2d 522, 452 N.Y.S.2d 213 (1st Plaintiffs continue to insist, however, as the......
-
Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. State Liquor Authority
...Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35, 43, 86 S.Ct. 1254, 1260, 16 L.Ed.2d 336, supra; Matter of Admiral Wine & Liq. Co. v. State Liq. Auth., 61 N.Y.2d 858, 861, 473 N.Y.S.2d 969, 462 N.E.2d 146). V Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing the petition should be aff......
-
J.A.J. Liquor Store, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
...anyone to determine prices which bind others in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (see, Matter of Admiral Wine & Liq. Co. v. State Liq. Auth., 61 N.Y.2d 858, 473 N.Y.S.2d 969, 462 N.E.2d 146; Battipaglia v. New York State Liq. Auth., 745 F.2d 166 [2d Cir, Sept. 21, 1984], cert. denied ......
-
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Mack
...v. Norman Williams Co., supra, at 659, 102 S.Ct. at 3298-99 (emphasis supplied); see also, Matter of Admiral Wine & Liq. Co. v. State Liq. Auth., 61 N.Y.2d 858, 861, 473 N.Y.S.2d 969, 462 N.E.2d 146). Assuming that LIPA may, at some point, sell bonds or float securities thereby implicating ......
-
New York. Practice Text
...oil or gas with the least waste, to eliminate it might have an anticompetitive effect.” Admiral Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Liquor Auth., 61 N.Y.2d 858, 860-61 (N.Y. 1984). 299. N.Y. ALCO. BEV. CONT. LAW § 101-b(4-a)(f). 300. Cigarette Market Standards Act, N.Y. TAX LAW §§ 483-489. 301. With......
-
New York
...argument that the State law is invalid because it might have an anticompetitive effect.” Admiral Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Liquor Auth., 61 N.Y.2d 858, 860-61 (N.Y. 1984). 297. N.Y. ALCO. BEV. CONT. LAW § 101-b(4-a)(f). 298. Cigarette Market Standards Act, N.Y. TAX LAW §§ 483-489. 299. Wit......