Angelina Cafe Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Angelina Cafe Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

223 A.D.2d 509, 637 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 731

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 509 (Angelina Cafe 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

Angelina Cafe Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 223 A.D.2d 509, 637 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered June 19, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for an on-premises liquor license, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s failure to disclose material financial information as well as the relationship of the bar’s manager to the equipment leaseholder and to the prior licensee provides a rational basis for respondent’s determination that the applicant was not the sole party in interest, and that petitioner’s application for an on-premises liquor license should therefore be denied (see, Matter of Benidor Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 127 AD2d 534, lv denied 70 NY2d 602). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered June 19, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for an on-premises liquor license, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s failure to disclose material financial information as well as the relationship of the bar’s manager to the equipment leaseholder and to the prior licensee provides a rational basis for respondent’s determination that the applicant was not the sole party in interest, and that petitioner’s application for an on-premises liquor license should therefore be denied (see, Matter of Benidor Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 127 AD2d 534, lv denied 70 NY2d 602). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 509, 637 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angelina-cafe-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack