AJK Café, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

AJK Café, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

65 A.D.3d 952, 886 N.Y.S.2d 10

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 952 (AJK Café, Inc. 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

AJK Café, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 65 A.D.3d 952, 886 N.Y.S.2d 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated November 26, 2008, finding petitioner in violation of 9 NYCRR 48.3 by employing an unlicensed security guard and imposing a $2,500 civil penalty, and an alternative penalty of a 15-day suspension of petitioner’s liquor license plus a $1,000 bond forfeiture, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Joan B. Lobis, J.], entered March 4, 2009) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of a detective who performed a business inspection of petitioner’s bar, established that petitioner was in violation of 9 NYCRR 48.3 by employing an unlicensed security guard. Petitioner offered no testimony or other admissible proof to support its position that the subject employee worked as a busboy and that the investigating detectives mistook him for a security guard. There is, therefore, no basis to disturb the credibility findings of the administrative law judge (see Matter of Café La China Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 43 AD3d 280, 281 [2007]).

The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated November 26, 2008, finding petitioner in violation of 9 NYCRR 48.3 by employing an unlicensed security guard and imposing a $2,500 civil penalty, and an alternative penalty of a 15-day suspension of petitioner’s liquor license plus a $1,000 bond forfeiture, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Joan B. Lobis, J.], entered March 4, 2009) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of a detective who performed a business inspection of petitioner’s bar, established that petitioner was in violation of 9 NYCRR 48.3 by employing an unlicensed security guard. Petitioner offered no testimony or other admissible proof to support its position that the subject employee worked as a busboy and that the investigating detectives mistook him for a security guard. There is, therefore, no basis to disturb the credibility findings of the administrative law judge (see Matter of Café La China Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 43 AD3d 280, 281 [2007]).

The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 952, 886 N.Y.S.2d 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ajk-cafe-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack