2700 Tavern, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

2700 Tavern, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

146 A.D.2d 552, 537 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 497

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 146 A.D.2d 552 (2700 Tavern, Inc. v. 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

2700 Tavern, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 146 A.D.2d 552, 537 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered November 27, [553]*5531987, which granted petitioner’s application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to the extent of finding the determination of respondent State Liquor Authority directing the forfeiture of petitioner’s $1,000 compliance bond to be excessive and remanding the matter to the State Liquor Authority for imposition of a new penalty, is unanimously reversed on the law and the penalty imposed by respondent reinstated, without costs or disbursements.

We are bound by the determination in Matter of Plato’s Cave v State Liq. Auth. (68 NY2d 791) that a Joker Poker machine is a gambling device prohibited under Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6).

The petitioner was found guilty of having suffered or permitted such gambling. The only issue here is the penalty imposed by the State Liquor Authority, being a 10-day deferred suspension of petitioner’s liquor license plus a $1,000 bond forfeiture, and whether it is a reasonable exercise of its discretion.

It cannot be said that the penalty was disproportionate to the offense. (See, Matter of Norwood Pub. v State Liq. Auth., 145 AD2d 322.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

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

— Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered November 27, [553]*5531987, which granted petitioner’s application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to the extent of finding the determination of respondent State Liquor Authority directing the forfeiture of petitioner’s $1,000 compliance bond to be excessive and remanding the matter to the State Liquor Authority for imposition of a new penalty, is unanimously reversed on the law and the penalty imposed by respondent reinstated, without costs or disbursements.

We are bound by the determination in Matter of Plato’s Cave v State Liq. Auth. (68 NY2d 791) that a Joker Poker machine is a gambling device prohibited under Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6).

The petitioner was found guilty of having suffered or permitted such gambling. The only issue here is the penalty imposed by the State Liquor Authority, being a 10-day deferred suspension of petitioner’s liquor license plus a $1,000 bond forfeiture, and whether it is a reasonable exercise of its discretion.

It cannot be said that the penalty was disproportionate to the offense. (See, Matter of Norwood Pub. v State Liq. Auth., 145 AD2d 322.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A.D.2d 552, 537 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2700-tavern-inc-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack