Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Friedman v. Valentine

42 N.Y.S.2d 593

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1943-07-02
Topic
international-arbitration

How later courts describe this case

  • fingerprinting of employees in cabarets

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Friedman v. Valentine. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
MATTER OF FRIEDMANv.VALENTINE,266 App. Div. 561(1943)
42 N.Y.S.2d 593
In the Matter of SAMUEL FRIEDMAN, as President of the New York Local Joint
Board of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Alliance and
Bartenders International League of America, et al., Appellants, against
LEWIS J. VALENTINE, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York,
Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
July 2, 1943.
Page 562
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County, PECORA, J.
Louis B. Boudinof counsel (Boudin, Cohn Glickstein, attorneys), for appellants.Paxton Blairof counsel (Charles C. WeinsteinandBernardFriedlanderwith him on the brief;Robert H. Schaffer, ActingCorporation Counsel), for respondent.
Order affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.

MARTIN, P.J., TOWNLEY, DORE and COHN, JJ., concur; CALLAHAN, J., concurs in opinion.
CALLAHAN, J. (concurring).
This case differs fromAcorn Employment Service, Inc., v.Moss(266 App. Div. 829), in that here, in addition to the power granted by section 885 of the New York City Charter (1938) permitting the Commissioner to make rules for the conduct of his own office, he is granted express power to make such rules and regulations for the supervision and operation of the businesses under his jurisdiction as are not inconsistent with any other provisions of law (New York City Charter [1938], § 436).

Reading all the applicable statutes together, including those defining the duties of the Police Commissioner there appearsPage 563to be a sufficient standard supplied concerning the rule-making power.

The regulations adopted (as amended) seem reasonable. Though the right retained in rule 5 of the Regulations Governing Cabarets to revoke an identification card is broad and without any express limitation, I think there is an implied limitation that the administrative act may only be for good cause shown. There is right to judicial review (Civ. Prac. Act, art. 78). Accordingly, there is no unconstitutional interference with the fundamental right to work.

The order should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.