417 Restaurant, Inc. v. Rohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

417 Restaurant, Inc. v. Rohan

10 A.D.2d 572, 195 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11965

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 572 (417 Restaurant, Inc. v. Rohan) 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

417 Restaurant, Inc. v. Rohan, 10 A.D.2d 572, 195 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously annulled, without costs, and the State Liquor Authority is directed to reinstate restaurant liquor license of the petitioner. There is an explicit finding by the Liquor Authority that “the licensee’s officer [573]*573did not actually know of the occurrence of the solicitation for prostitution”, and, further, that “ he did not know of or suffer or permit prostitution ”, Therefore, the only finding remaining on which the action taken by the Authority could be based is the one that the licensee or the employee involved “was aware that a man and woman previously unknown to each other were being allowed to meet in the licensed premises.” Assuming that there were facts to support such finding it is not a sufficient basis for a conclusion that the licensee thereby suffered the premises to become disorderly. In any event, there is no evidence upon which a finding can be made that the licensee or its employee was aware that the persons involved were previously unknown to each other. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously annulled, without costs, and the State Liquor Authority is directed to reinstate restaurant liquor license of the petitioner. There is an explicit finding by the Liquor Authority that “the licensee’s officer [573]*573did not actually know of the occurrence of the solicitation for prostitution”, and, further, that “ he did not know of or suffer or permit prostitution ”, Therefore, the only finding remaining on which the action taken by the Authority could be based is the one that the licensee or the employee involved “was aware that a man and woman previously unknown to each other were being allowed to meet in the licensed premises.” Assuming that there were facts to support such finding it is not a sufficient basis for a conclusion that the licensee thereby suffered the premises to become disorderly. In any event, there is no evidence upon which a finding can be made that the licensee or its employee was aware that the persons involved were previously unknown to each other. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 572, 195 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/417-restaurant-inc-v-rohan-nyappdiv-1960.