Gundaker Central Motors, Inc. v. Gassert

Decision Date17 December 1956
Docket NumberNo. A--38,A--38
Citation23 N.J. 71,127 A.2d 566
PartiesGUNDAKER CENTRAL MOTORS, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frederick J. GASSERT, Jr., Director of Division of Motor Vehicles, etc., Defendant-Appellant, and Borough of Belmar, etc., Defendant (Monmouth County Action). Jerome D. HABER, trading as Ajax Motors, and John Slaman, trading as Capitol Auto Sales, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Frederick J. GASSERT, Jr., individually and as Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, etc., Defendant-Appellant, and Angelo De Rose, etc., et al., Defendants (Bergen County Action).
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

John F. Crane, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant Frederick J. Gassert, Jr., Director of Division of Motor Vehicles (Grover C. Richman, Jr., Atty. Gen., of New Jersey, attorney).

Albert S. Gross, Hackensack, for respondents Jerome Haber and John Slaman (Nelson G. Gross, Hackensack, on the brief).

Ward Kremer, Asbury Park, for respondent Gundaker Central Motors, Inc.

Gilhooly, Yauch & Fagan, Newark, filed a brief as counsel for New Jersey Automotive Trade Association Amicus Curiae (James E. Fagan, Newark, of counsel, Daniel A. Degnan and Martin Kesselhaut, Newark, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

VANDERBILT, C.J.

This is a consolidated appeal from judgments of the Law and Chancery Divisions of the Superior Court holding unconstitutional statutes that require car dealers to close on Sunday and providing penalties for failure to do so. We certified the matter on our own motion pursuant to R.R. 1:10--1(a) because it is concerned with the constitutionality of statutes dealing with an important matter of public policy and further because it indicates some serious misconceptions as to the effect of our decision in State v. Fair Lawn Service Center, 20 N.J. 468, 120 A.2d 233 (1956).

The question here raised is whether a law which singles out automobile dealers and prohibits their business operations on Sunday is a constitutional exercise of power by the State.

The action in the Gundaker case was by suit in lieu of the prerogative writ of Certiorari in the Law Division, Monmouth County, attacking the constitutionality of chapter 254 of the Laws of 1955 (approved December 28, 1955). The action in the Haber case was commenced in the Chancery Division, Bergen County, seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality of not only chapter 254 of the Laws of 1955, but all of chapter 253 as well.

Chapter 254 of the Laws of 1955 (N.J.S. 2A:171--1.1 et seq., N.J.S.A.) in essence prohibits dealing in new or used cars on sunday and holds that persons who do so in violation of the act are disorderly persons and subject to a fine or imprisonment or both. It also provides for an additional penalty by way of suspension or revocation of the car dealer's license to engage in that business required by chapter 10 of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes. This statute was enacted as an entirely new provision and a supplement to chapter 171 of Title 2A of the New Jersey Statutes.

R.S. 39:10--20, N.J.S.A., prior to its amendment by chapter 253 of the Laws of 1955, provided for the suspension and revocation of a car dealer's license after hearing for certain violations of the law and misconduct. The new act merely amended the statute by including in the causes for suspension or revocation 'final conviction of the licensee for violating any provisions of Chapter 171 of Title 2A or of any supplement thereof (Observance of Sabbath Days).'

The facts in both cases are not substantially in dispute.

The plaintiff in the Gundaker case is engaged in the operation of a new and used automobile business in Belmar, Monmouth County. It had been its practice for many years to keep open on Sunday and to conduct business on that day just as on any other day in the week. Sunday was its biggest business day; the plaintiff claims that it sold more cars on that day than it sold on any other single day of the week and will now be caused to lose substantial revenues. In keeping open on Sunday, it was no different than many other businesses in the communities surrounding Belmar. Real estate offices, 5 and 10 cent stores, antique shops and motor boat agencies all keep their doors open for 'business as usual' on Sunday.

Just prior to the enactment of the statutes in question here, competitive conditions in the automobile sales business were causing many dealers to remain open on Sundays as a matter of self-preservation to obtain a share of the available trade. These places of business were generally open 12 to 13 hours a day during the week and 8 to 9 hours a day on weekends. Hours of work of the sales personnel engaged by these dealers ranged from 60 to 77 hours per week, and the prevalence of a commission system of compensation for these salesmen tended to cause them to work long hours without adequate time off for recreational purposes.

It also appears that of the approximate 1,100 automobile dealers selling new and used cars in this State, about 900 of them are members of the New Jersey State Automotive Trade Association. In the fall of 1954, evidently for the purpose of alleviating existing conditions in the industry, this group caused a poll to be taken of its members on the subject of Sunday closing. The ballots received from 80.3% Of the members showed overwhelmingly that the group were in favor of Sunday closing; 77.4% Of those voicing their opinion voted in favor of it. Based upon this expression by its members, the Association had its counsel draft a bill providing for closing of automobile agencies on Sunday. Whether this bill was enacted in the form suggested, without amendment, does not definitely appear, but the court below found that the bill was enacted into law.

After the enactment of the statutes here in issue, the plaintiff received a notice from the Belmar Police Department that it would have to close on Sunday according to the direction of the law. Gundaker has complied with the law ever since and brought this action to test the constitutional propriety of the main enactment, L.1955, c. 254.

After trial, the court below was of the opinion that the statute, L.1955, c. 254, was unconstitutional, that it

'was not enacted to protect a basic interest of society such as general health, safety, morals or welfare of the people, but rather * * * had as its predominant purpose a measure of control of competition in the sale of new and second-hand automobiles in this State.'

and as such it said: 'It constitutes a perversion of the police power and violates both the State and Federal Constitutions.' The trial court saw nothing connected with the keeping open of automobile agencies on Sunday that could fairly be said to constitute a danger or hazard to public health, morals, safety or welfare sufficient to justify a separate classification for this type of endeavor, and found the classification illusory and unreasonable and that the statute denied to the plaintiff and other automobile dealers equal protection of the laws guaranteed by our Constitutions.

In the Haber case the plaintiffs are automobile dealers in South Hackensack and Little Ferry, Bergen County. Their complaint in substance is similar to that in the Gundaker suit, except that in this suit the attack was levied at 'all portions' of both laws. But unlike the other case it was disposed of on cross-motions for summary judgment. In this case the Director of Motor Vehicles took the position that the traffic on state highways on Sundays, and here particularly Route 46 as it runs through Little Ferry and South Hackensack, N.J., between the hours of 12:00 noon and 10:10 p.m. was unusually heavy and that the activity of motorists driving off the highway to the places of business of these car dealers and then back on to the road again constituted a constand and serious traffic hazard and increased the risk of collision during this period.

The trial court, without opinion, undertook to declare unconstitutional in its entirety not only L.1955, c. 254 but also L.1955, c. 253, without considering whether the latter enactment might have had any validity and effect apart from any dependence upon the other act.

On this appeal the New Jersey Automotive Trade Association has been permitted to intervene as Amicus curiae and has filed a brief supporting the position of the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles and the other appellants here.

The Director of Motor Vehicles contends that these statutes represent a valid exercise of the prerogatives of the Legislature in the fields of public health, welfare and safety; that the long hours of work forced by the competitive conditions furnish a basis for regulation of this particular field of endeavor; that the traffic hazard created by these businesses being open during the heavy traffic on Sunday afternoons presents a reasonable basis for regulation; that the trial court attributed to the Legislature a motive in the enactment of these laws which was not apparent from the enactment and was based on elements that were in no way binding or conclusive in their indication of the true purpose of the Legislature; and that notwithstanding our decision in State v. Fair Lawn Service Center, Inc., 20 N.J. 468, 120 A.2d 233 (1956), the statute remained effective as a declaration of the public policy of the State with regard to Sunday closing. He also urges that the statutes are not unconstitutional in a discriminatory sense because there is reasonable basis for legislating against the Sunday operations of these car dealers and no car dealers have been excluded from the operation of the statute; that by forcing the closing on Sunday of all persons engaged in the sale of new and used cars no person in that business in this State has been adversely affected from an economic standpoint; that no harm has been caused to the plaintiffs; and that, therefore, they have not been deprived of equal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Two Guys From Harrison, Inc. v. Furman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • April 4, 1960
    ...for the private advantage of a particular group. Moyant v. Paramus, 30 N.J. 528, 545, 154 A.2d 9 (1959); Gundaker Central Motors v. Gassert, 23 N.J. 71, 83, 127 A.2d 566 (1956), appeal dismissed 354 U.S. 933, 77 S.Ct. 1397, 1 L.Ed.2d 1533 (1957); Reingold v. Harper, 6 N.J. 182, 192, 78 A.2d......
  • NYT Cable TV v. Homestead at Mansfield, Inc., A-49 and N
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 28, 1988
    ...mandate or prohibition." Profaci, supra, 56 N.J. at 349, 266 A.2d 579 (citing cases); see also Gundaker Central Motors, Inc. v. Gassert, 23 N.J. 71, 81, 127 A.2d 566 (1956), app. dismissed 354 U.S. 933, 77 S.Ct. 1397, 1 L.Ed.2d 1533 (1957) (duty of court to uphold legislation unless there i......
  • Vornado, Inc. v. Hyland
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 18, 1978
    ...... Sunday rest and relaxation both on highways and in central city and suburban business areas and their environs. See undaker Central Motors v. Gassert, 23 N.J. 71, 82, 127 A.2d 566 (1956) appeal ......
  • Tinder v. Clarke Auto Co., 29611
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 30, 1958
    ...day of the week and for long hours; who can say that this is not inimical to the public good? * * *' Gundaker Central Motors, Inc., v. Gassert, 1956, 23 N.J. 71, 127 A.2d 566, 572, appeal dismissed, 1957, 354 U.S. 933, 77 S.Ct. 1397, 1 L.Ed.2d The severity of this type of competition is evi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT