Greenspan v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control
| Decision Date | 15 December 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. A--412,A--412 |
| Citation | 93 A.2d 204,23 N.J.Super. 567 |
| Parties | GREENSPAN et al. v. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Raymond Chasan, Jersey City, argued the cause for the appellants.
Samuel B. Helfand, Newark, argued the cause for the respondent Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (Theodore D. Parsons, Atty. Gen. attorney).
Samuel Moskowitz, Union City, argued the cause for the respondent Hudson Bergen County Retail Liquor Stores Ass'n (Harry Krieger, Newark, of counsel).
Sidney Simandl, Newark, argued the cause for the respondent Jersey City Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n (Harry Krieger, Newark, of counsel).
Before Judges FREUND, STANTON and CONLON.
FREUND, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned).
On May 14, 1951, the Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the City of Jersey City issued a transfer of a plenary retail consumption license, expiring June 30, 1951, from George L. Paris as Receiver of Empire Restaurant, Inc., to Irving Greenspan and Aaron Greenspan, from premises No. 754 Newark Avenue to No. 678 Newark Avenue, Jersey City. The respondents Hudson Bergen County Retail Liquor Stores Association and Jersey City Retail Liquor Dealers Association, New Jersey corporations, appealed to the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, within the 30 days' time prescribed by statute. Pending determination of the appeal, the Greenspans applied to the local board for a renewal of the transferred license, which renewal was granted, to expire on June 30, 1952. No appeal was taken. Subsequently, the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control ordered both the transfer and the renewal licenses cancelled.
On this appeal two points are argued: (1) that the respondents are not proper parties to prosecute an appeal within the intendment of R.S. 33:1--22, N.J.S.A., and (2) that the cancellation of the renewal license was erroneous because no appeal was taken from its issuance, as required by statute.
R.S. 33:1--22, N.J.S.A. provides that '* * * any taxpayer or other aggrieved person opposing the issuance of such license may within thirty days after the issuance of such licenses appeal to the commissioner from the action of the issuing authority. * * *' It is admitted that the respondent associations are not taxpayers. The appellants contend that the respondents are not aggrieved persons. This point is without merit in view of the ruling of the former Court of Errors and Appeals in Hudson Bergen, etc., Ass'n v. Board of Com'rs of City of Hoboken, 135 N.J.L. 502, 52 A.2d 668 (E. & A.1947), wherein the identical question was considered. The court held that inasmuch as the purpose of the organization is to regulate and control the liquor traffic, it is in harmony with the objective of the statute and is sufficiently interested in the subject matter to constitute it an 'aggrieved person' within the meaning of the statute. The appellant argues that this ruling has been inferentially overruled by New Jersey Bankers Ass'n v. Van Riper, 1 N.J. 193, 62 A.2d 677 (1948). There the plaintiff was a voluntary unincorporated association organized to advance the general welfare and interests of banks and banking institutions, although it was not itself engaged in the banking business. The court held that the plaintiff was not legally competent to maintain an action under the Declaratory Judgments Act, R.S. 2:26--66 et seq., now N.J.S. 2A:16--50 et seq., N.J.S.A., because, due to the absence of other necessary parties defendant, a declaratory judgment would not have its intended tranquilizing function.
In Bergen County Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Barden, 9 N.J.Super. 480, 75 A.2d 556 (Ch.Div.1950), the plaintiff, a non-profit corporation, brought suit under the Fair Trade Act, R.S. 56:4--3 et seq., N.J.S.A. The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had no right to maintain the suit was granted. It was held that the Fair Trade Act prescribes who may invoke the injunctive process under the act, and that the plaintiff association did not come within the category.
Since the plaintiff in the Hudson Bergen, etc., Ass'n v. Board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
... ... Superior Court of New Jersey, ... Appellate Division ... Argued Sept. 23, 1974 ... Decided Dec. 6, 1974 ... a proper exercise of the court's inherent power to control its own calendar. Even in State v. O'Leary, Supra, where ... ...
-
Greenspan v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Dept. of Law & Public Safety of N. J.
...called the appellants, perfected an appeal to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, which resulted in an affirmance there. 23 N.J.Super. 567, 92 A.2d 204 (1953). We allowed certification on the appellants' petition therefor. 11 N.J. 581 The factual determinations of the Director were not ......
-
Greenspan v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control
...Court of New Jersey. March 9, 1953. On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division. See same case below: 23 N.J.Super. 567, 93 A.2d 204. Raymond Chasan, Jersey City, for the Theodore D. Parsons, Red Bank, Samuel B. Helfand, Newark, Samuel Moskowitz, Union City, Sidney S......