1442 Third Ave. Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1442 Third Ave. Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

225 A.D.2d 412, 640 N.Y.2d 17, 640 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2700

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 412 (1442 Third Ave. Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1442 Third Ave. Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 225 A.D.2d 412, 640 N.Y.2d 17, 640 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that [413]*413petitioner altered the subject premises without having obtained respondent’s approval, and aided and abetted an unlicensed person or persons in the trafficking of alcohol (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231), notwithstanding the different findings made by the Administrative Law Judge (see, Matter of Danzo Estate v New York State Liq. Auth., 27 NY2d 469). The penalty imposed is not shockingly disproportionate to the offense (supra, at 233-234). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that [413]*413petitioner altered the subject premises without having obtained respondent’s approval, and aided and abetted an unlicensed person or persons in the trafficking of alcohol (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231), notwithstanding the different findings made by the Administrative Law Judge (see, Matter of Danzo Estate v New York State Liq. Auth., 27 NY2d 469). The penalty imposed is not shockingly disproportionate to the offense (supra, at 233-234). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 412, 640 N.Y.2d 17, 640 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1442-third-ave-rest-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack