contract made violation in New York

1962Store, 124 App. Div. 384 ; Segal v. Chemical Importing & Mfg.

1917In Sirkin v. Fourteenth Street Store, 124 App. Div. 384 , involving this same question, the court, in reversing the judgment in favor of plaintiff, said: 16 Whether the purchasing agent of the defendant agreed to place the orders at the same time the plaintiff agreed to give him the bribe, or whether the orders were given subsequently, but based upon the plaintiff’s unlawful contract to bribe the agent, is immaterial. * * * A contract made in violation of a penal statute, although not expressly prohibited or declared to be void, is prohibited, void and unenforcible, whether executory or execut

1962The law is also well established that a contract made in violation of section 439 of the Penal Law is unenforcible (Morgan Munitions Supply Co. v. Studebaker Corp. of Amer., 226 N. Y. 94 ; Sirkin v. Fourteenth St.

1940“No person can maintain an action to which he must trace his title through his own breach of the law.” (Morgan Munitions Co. v. Studebaker Corp., 226 N. Y. 94, at p. 99 .) The law is well settled that a contract made in violation of the penal statute is void and unenforcible.

1984Co., 364 US 520 ; Kaiser-Frazer Corp. v Otis & Co., 195 F2d 838, cert den 344 US 856 ; Peabody, Jr. & Co. v Travelers Ins.

1978Co. ( 364 US 520, 565 , supra), where the statute construed therein did not provide for the invalidation of a contract made in violation of its provisions, but did penalize the violation by a fine, the Supreme Court, nevertheless, struck down the contract, saying that: "[the statute’s] primary purpose is to guarantee the integrity of the federal contracting process and to protect the public from the corruption which might lie undetectable beneath the surface of a contract conceived in a tainted transaction.” Hence, we interpret the statute, under the circumstances before us, as empowering the

1969It does not require any argument to show that a contract made in violation of its requirements is null and void.’ (Brady v. Mayor of City of N. Y., 20 N. Y. 312, 316-317 .) ” There is proof in the record that the per ton savings by the use of imported instead of domestic manufactured steel would be from 8 to 20 dollars depending on the particular item in which the steel is a component part.

1965(Brady v. Mayor of City of N. Y., 20 N. Y. 312, 316-317 .) Moreover, once a contract is proved to have been awarded without the required competitive bidding, a waste of public funds is presumed and a taxpayer is entitled to have the contract set aside without showing that the municipality suffered any actual injury.

1984It has been held that nonenforceability of a contract made in violation of a statute results, even though only one party’s action would be in violation of the statute (see Parsky Funeral Home v Shapiro, 83 Misc 2d 566 ).

1984It has long been settled law that a contract made in violation of either a constitution or statute is an unlawful undertaking and, as such, is void and unenforceable (see Robitzek v Reliance Intercontinental Corp., 7 AD2d 407 , affd 7 NY2d 1041 ; see, also, United States v Mississippi Val.

1984Co., 364 US 520 ; Kaiser-Frazer Corp. v Otis & Co., 195 F2d 838, cert den 344 US 856 ; Peabody, Jr. & Co. v Travelers Ins.

1984It has long been settled law that a contract made in violation of either a constitution or statute is an unlawful undertaking and, as such, is void and unenforceable (see Robitzek v Reliance Intercontinental Corp., 7 AD2d 407 , affd 7 NY2d 1041 ; see, also, United States v Mississippi Val.

1977(Carmine v Murphy, 285 NY 413 ; American Store Equip. & Constr.

1974The case that comes closest to the issue at bar is Berger v. Dynamics Imports, ( 51 Misc 2d 988 ) which involved a shipper’s violation of the Interstate Commerce Act.

1974(Shedlinsky v. Budweiser Brewing Co., 163 N. Y. 437 .) Generally where a statute makes it unlawful for an unlicensed person to engage in a designated business, such a contract made in violation thereof is void and unenforceable (Richardson, Contracts [5th ed.], § 139).

1974Thus a statute which made it unlawful for one to engage in the business of master plumber unless registered, precluded an unregis tered master plumber from recovering upon a contract (Johnston v. Dahlgren, 166 N. Y. 354 ).

1966Ray v. Martin, 294 N. Y. 61, 73 ), we usually give due and great respect to such holdings.

1966Corp. v. Jack Dempsey’s Punch Bowl, 283 N. Y. 601 [Education Law, § 1476, subd. 1]; Adler v. Zimmerman, 233 N. Y. 431 [National Prohibition Act]; Atkin v. Hill, Darlington & Grimm, 15 A D 2d 362, affd. 12 N Y 2d 940 [Insurance Law, § 51, subd. 1]; O’Mara v. Dentinger, 271 App. Div. 22 , 29 et seq. [United States Rationing Act]); but a contract made in violation of certain other statutes which require a license or certificate to do business will not for that reason be rendered unenforcible (Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N. Y. 274 [Agriculture and Markets Law, § 257]; Sajor v. Ampol, Inc., 27

1966Corp. v. Jack Dempsey’s Punch Bowl, 283 N. Y. 601 [Education Law, § 1476, subd. 1]; Adler v. Zimmerman, 233 N. Y. 431 [National Prohibition Act]; Atkin v. Hill, Darlington & Grimm, 15 A D 2d 362, affd. 12 N Y 2d 940 [Insurance Law, § 51, subd. 1]; O’Mara v. Dentinger, 271 App. Div. 22 , 29 et seq. [United States Rationing Act]); but a contract made in violation of certain other statutes which require a license or certificate to do business will not for that reason be rendered unenforcible (Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N. Y. 274 [Agriculture and Markets Law, § 257]; Sajor v. Ampol, Inc., 27

1966Corp. v. Jack Dempsey’s Punch Bowl, 283 N. Y. 601 [Education Law, § 1476, subd. 1]; Adler v. Zimmerman, 233 N. Y. 431 [National Prohibition Act]; Atkin v. Hill, Darlington & Grimm, 15 A D 2d 362, affd. 12 N Y 2d 940 [Insurance Law, § 51, subd. 1]; O’Mara v. Dentinger, 271 App. Div. 22 , 29 et seq. [United States Rationing Act]); but a contract made in violation of certain other statutes which require a license or certificate to do business will not for that reason be rendered unenforcible (Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N. Y. 274 [Agriculture and Markets Law, § 257]; Sajor v. Ampol, Inc., 27

1966Corp. v. Jack Dempsey’s Punch Bowl, 283 N. Y. 601 [Education Law, § 1476, subd. 1]; Adler v. Zimmerman, 233 N. Y. 431 [National Prohibition Act]; Atkin v. Hill, Darlington & Grimm, 15 A D 2d 362, affd. 12 N Y 2d 940 [Insurance Law, § 51, subd. 1]; O’Mara v. Dentinger, 271 App. Div. 22 , 29 et seq. [United States Rationing Act]); but a contract made in violation of certain other statutes which require a license or certificate to do business will not for that reason be rendered unenforcible (Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N. Y. 274 [Agriculture and Markets Law, § 257]; Sajor v. Ampol, Inc., 27

1966Corp. v. Jack Dempsey’s Punch Bowl, 283 N. Y. 601 [Education Law, § 1476, subd. 1]; Adler v. Zimmerman, 233 N. Y. 431 [National Prohibition Act]; Atkin v. Hill, Darlington & Grimm, 15 A D 2d 362, affd. 12 N Y 2d 940 [Insurance Law, § 51, subd. 1]; O’Mara v. Dentinger, 271 App. Div. 22 , 29 et seq. [United States Rationing Act]); but a contract made in violation of certain other statutes which require a license or certificate to do business will not for that reason be rendered unenforcible (Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N. Y. 274 [Agriculture and Markets Law, § 257]; Sajor v. Ampol, Inc., 27

1962It is hornbook law that a contract made in violation of a penal statute, although not expressly declared to be void by the statute, is void and unenforcible, whether executory or executed (Griffith v. Wells, 3 Denio 226 ; Barton v. Port Jackson & Union Falls Plank Road Co., 17 Barb. 397 ).

1962It is hornbook law that a contract made in violation of a penal statute, although not expressly declared to be void by the statute, is void and unenforcible, whether executory or executed (Griffith v. Wells, 3 Denio 226 ; Barton v. Port Jackson & Union Falls Plank Road Co., 17 Barb. 397 ).

1940(Morgan Munitions Co. v. Studebaker Corp., supra; Sturm v. Truby, 245 App. Div. 357, 359 ; Segal v. Chemical Importing & Manufacturing Co., 205 id. 220, 225.) The trial justice properly dismissed the complaint because of the illegality of the assignment upon which plaintiff’s causes of actions were based.

1936The rule enunciated by the above cases was recently followed in Bloch v. Frankfort Distillery, Inc. ( 247 App. Div. 864 ), wherein an action was brought on a contract for the storage of bottled whisky, which contract was entered into while the National Prohibition Act was in force.

1936So a defense of usury is not available after repeal of the usury statute, even though the contract when made was deemed “ void ” under the statute repealed (Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9 ); a contract made in violation of a statute enjoining the circulation of foreign bank bills under five dollars is enforcible after repeal of the statute (Central Bank v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 26 Barb. 23 ); a contract made in violation of a statute forbidding stock jobbing becomes valid by repeal of the statute (Washburn v. Franklin, 35 Barb. 599 ); a mortgage deemed invalid because improperly stamped ga

1936So a defense of usury is not available after repeal of the usury statute, even though the contract when made was deemed “ void ” under the statute repealed (Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9 ); a contract made in violation of a statute enjoining the circulation of foreign bank bills under five dollars is enforcible after repeal of the statute (Central Bank v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 26 Barb. 23 ); a contract made in violation of a statute forbidding stock jobbing becomes valid by repeal of the statute (Washburn v. Franklin, 35 Barb. 599 ); a mortgage deemed invalid because improperly stamped ga

1936So a defense of usury is not available after repeal of the usury statute, even though the contract when made was deemed “ void ” under the statute repealed (Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9 ); a contract made in violation of a statute enjoining the circulation of foreign bank bills under five dollars is enforcible after repeal of the statute (Central Bank v. Empire Stone Dressing Co., 26 Barb. 23 ); a contract made in violation of a statute forbidding stock jobbing becomes valid by repeal of the statute (Washburn v. Franklin, 35 Barb. 599 ); a mortgage deemed invalid because improperly stamped ga