Pratter v. Lascoff
| Decision Date | 10 January 1933 |
| Citation | 185 N.E. 716,261 N.Y. 509 |
| Parties | Hyman PRATTER, Respondent, v. J. Leon LASCOFF et al., Constituting the New York State Board of Pharmacy, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (236 App. Div. 713, 258 N. Y. S. 1002), entered August 12, 1932, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff, a licensed druggist, applied to defendants for a certificate of registration of the ownership of a store to be conducted by him as a pharmacy, that defendants refused to issue such certificate, and that such refusal was based upon sections 1354 and 1362 of the Education Law (Consol. Laws, c. 16), providing, among other things, that a pharmacy may be owned and conducted only by a licensed pharmacist, and prohibiting the ownership of a pharmacy by a licensed druggist. The complaint demanded judgment against the defendants declaring that the provisions of these sections, in so far as they provide that a pharmacy shall be owned only by a licensed pharmacist, are unconstitutional and void.
John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. (Henry Epstein, of New York City, and Harold Greenstein, of Albany, of counsel), for appellants.
Philip Halpern, of Buffalo, and Milton H. Friedman, of Rochester, for respondent.
Joseph J. Hammer, of New York City, amicus curiae, for New York State Pharmaceutical Ass'n and New York Pharmaceutical Conference.
Charles A. Brind, Jr., of Albany, amicus curiae, for the New York State Pharmaceutical Ass'n.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U. S. 105, 49 S. Ct. 57, 73 L. Ed. 204.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Superx Drugs Corp. v. Michigan Bd. of Pharmacy
...have no real or substantial relation to the public health; * * *'. See, also, Evans v. Baldridge, 294 Pa. 142, 144 A. 97; Pratter v. Lascoff, 261 N.Y. 509, 185 N.E. 716; State v. Peoples Drug Stores, Inc., 36 Del. 120, 172 A. 257; Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Pharm......
-
Loblaw, Inc. v. New York State Bd. of Pharmacy
...not later than 6:30 p. m., unconstitutional. In Pratter v. Lascoff, 140 Misc. 211, 249 N.Y.S. 211, affirmed 236 App.Div. 713, 258 N.Y.S. 1002; 261 N.Y. 509, 185 N.E. 716, the court, upon the authority of Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 49 S.Ct. 57, 73 L.Ed. 204, held that so much of......
-
Magan Medical Clinic v. California State Bd. of MedicalExaminers
...v. Lascoff (1933) (N.Y. Court of Appeals) (140 Misc. 211), 249 N.Y.Supp. 211, aff'd. (236 App.Div. 713), 258 N.Y.Supp. 1002 (261 N.Y. 509), 185 N.E. 716; State v. Peoples Drug Stores (1934) (6 W.W.Harr. 120), 172 Atl. 257) and particularly the portions in said Opinion quoted from Liggett: '......
-
New York Foreign Trade Zone Operators, Inc. v. State Liquor Auth.
...may be the subject of an action for a declaratory judgment. Chung Mee Restaurant Co. v. Healey, 86 N.H. 483, 171 A. 263;Pratter v. Lascoff, 261 N.Y. 509, 185 N.E. 716; Reed v. Littleton, supra. Defendants do not dispute the assertions that plaintiff merely adds pure water to foreign distill......