Becker v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Becker v. State Liquor Authority

44 A.D.2d 594, 353 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5380

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 594 (Becker 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

Becker v. State Liquor Authority, 44 A.D.2d 594, 353 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul a determination of respondent State Liquor Authority, dated October 1, 1973, which suspended petitioner’s on-premises liquor license for 10 days. Determination modified, on the law, by directing that the 10-day period of suspension be reduced to a deferred period of 10. days. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. There was substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding that the licensee used excessive force in striking the patron instead of merely removing him. Therefore, the charges against petitioners must be sustained. However, the penalty imposed, under the circumstances, constituted an abuse of discretion to the extent indicated herein (CPLR 7803, subd. 3). Shapiro, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Benjamin and Munder, 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 a determination of respondent State Liquor Authority, dated October 1, 1973, which suspended petitioner’s on-premises liquor license for 10 days. Determination modified, on the law, by directing that the 10-day period of suspension be reduced to a deferred period of 10. days. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. There was substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding that the licensee used excessive force in striking the patron instead of merely removing him. Therefore, the charges against petitioners must be sustained. However, the penalty imposed, under the circumstances, constituted an abuse of discretion to the extent indicated herein (CPLR 7803, subd. 3). Shapiro, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 594, 353 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1974.