Alvaro v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alvaro v. State Liquor Authority

43 A.D.2d 903, 351 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5954

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1974

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 903 (Alvaro 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

Alvaro v. State Liquor Authority, 43 A.D.2d 903, 351 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously modified to reduce the penalty to a letter of warning, and as so modified confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The petitioner readily admitted the underlying facts of the charge of violating subdivision 3 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. At most there was a technical violation in that he failed to have reduced to writing the oral permission of the ABC Board (9 NYCRR 69.0 et seq.). No improper motive for the conduct is charged or appears in the record. Under the circumstances, a penalty of 10 days’ suspension and $1,000 bond forfeiture is excessive and should be reduced to a letter of warning. (Review of determination suspending liquor lipense, transferred by order of Ontario Special Term.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Moule, Cardamone and Simons, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously modified to reduce the penalty to a letter of warning, and as so modified confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The petitioner readily admitted the underlying facts of the charge of violating subdivision 3 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. At most there was a technical violation in that he failed to have reduced to writing the oral permission of the ABC Board (9 NYCRR 69.0 et seq.). No improper motive for the conduct is charged or appears in the record. Under the circumstances, a penalty of 10 days’ suspension and $1,000 bond forfeiture is excessive and should be reduced to a letter of warning. (Review of determination suspending liquor lipense, transferred by order of Ontario Special Term.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Moule, Cardamone and Simons, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 903, 351 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvaro-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1974.