49 Tompkins Rest. Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

49 Tompkins Rest. Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

38 A.D.2d 840, 331 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5402

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 840 (49 Tompkins Rest. 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

49 Tompkins Rest. Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 38 A.D.2d 840, 331 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul respondent’s determination dated December 10, 1971, which canceled petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license and made demand upon its $1,000 bond. Petition granted to the extent of modifying the determination, on the law, (1) by striking therefrom the demand on petitioner’s $1,000 bond and (2) by striking therefrom the provisions which canceled and directed surrender of petitioner’s license and substituting therefor a provision suspending petitioner’s license for a period of 60 days. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. In our opinion, there was substantial evidence in .the record to sustain respondent’s findings. However, we think the penalty imposed was an abuse of discretion and excessive to the extent indicated herein (CPLR 7803, subd. [3]; Matter of Domilpat Rest. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 35 A D 2d 536, affd. 28 N Y 2d 720). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul respondent’s determination dated December 10, 1971, which canceled petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license and made demand upon its $1,000 bond. Petition granted to the extent of modifying the determination, on the law, (1) by striking therefrom the demand on petitioner’s $1,000 bond and (2) by striking therefrom the provisions which canceled and directed surrender of petitioner’s license and substituting therefor a provision suspending petitioner’s license for a period of 60 days. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. In our opinion, there was substantial evidence in .the record to sustain respondent’s findings. However, we think the penalty imposed was an abuse of discretion and excessive to the extent indicated herein (CPLR 7803, subd. [3]; Matter of Domilpat Rest. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 35 A D 2d 536, affd. 28 N Y 2d 720). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 840, 331 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/49-tompkins-rest-inc-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1972.