# Mayflower Securities Co. v. Bureau of Securities

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · December 4, 1973 · 64 N.J. 85

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694370

## Case

- **Full name:** Mayflower Securities Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Bureau of Securities in the Division of Consumer Affairs of the Department of Law and Public Safety, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** December 4, 1973
- **Citations:** 64 N.J. 85; 312 A.2d 497; 1973 N.J. LEXIS 149
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Passman
- **Judges:** Hall, Passman
- **Cited by:** 574 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694370

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that appellate review of administrative adjudications must give "due regard ... to the agency's expertise where such expertise is a pertinent factor"
- holding that appellate court is not “bound by the agency’s interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue”
- stating an appellate court is "in no way bound by the agency's interpretation of a statute"

## Opinion text

Passman, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I am in agreement with so much of the opinion of the Court that deals with the facts concerning the charge against May *100 flower Securities that its agent Alan Robert Levine engaged in New Jersey securities transactions while unregistered. This infraction clearly was not willful nor injurious to the public interest.
The majority has remanded to the Bureau the matter of sanctions. However, it is indicated that said sanction “could validly be a reprimand together with payment of the registration fees” for the several years involved. If the Bureau has implicit authority to impose such a lesser sanction as censure or reprimand, then certainly this Court can do likewise.
As to the record-keeping violation, assuming all the facts as developed by the Bureau, the maximum penalty should also be a reprimand. This probability is envisioned by the majority.
Accordingly, I see no need to continue this matter which has now been in the Bureau and the Court for some time. We have jurisdiction for a final disposition. We can impose a. penalty. Both charges call for a reprimand and nothing more.
For reversal and remandmenl—Justices Hall, Sullivan and Clifford and Judges Conford and Collester—5.
For reversal—Justice Pashman—1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694370. Public record. Not legal advice.