6140 Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

6140 Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

56 A.D.2d 603, 391 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10681

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 603 (6140 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

6140 Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 56 A.D.2d 603, 391 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated May 5, 1976 and made after a hearing, which, upon finding petitioner guilty of certain misconduct, suspended its on-premises liquor license for 10 days and ordered a bond forfeiture of $1,000. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. The record contains substantial evidence to [604]*604support the determination, and the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 4 AD2d 361). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated May 5, 1976 and made after a hearing, which, upon finding petitioner guilty of certain misconduct, suspended its on-premises liquor license for 10 days and ordered a bond forfeiture of $1,000. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. The record contains substantial evidence to [604]*604support the determination, and the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 4 AD2d 361). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 603, 391 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/6140-rest-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack