Berlingieri v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berlingieri v. O'Connell

279 A.D. 735, 108 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3596

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 A.D. 735 (Berlingieri v. O'Connell) 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

Berlingieri v. O'Connell, 279 A.D. 735, 108 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record before the State Liquor Authority furnished a substantial basis for its refusal to grant petitioner’s application for a restaurant liquor license.

Since the revocation of a license previously issued to petitioner on a finding that he permitted the premises to become disorderly, a number of applications for a license for the premises were made and denied. Although petitioner has continuously owned and operated the restaurant since the revocation, he caused seven of the applications to be filed in the names of others without disclosing his interest. In other applications made in his own name he concealed Ms record of arrests, two of which involved the sale of alcoholic beverages without a license. These facts amply support a finding that petitioner’s prior record for law observance is such that the granting of his application would create a high degree of risk in the administration and enforcement of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

In such circumstances it may not be said that the action of the Authority in denying petitioner’s application was arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the petition dismissed.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the petition dismissed. Settle order on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

The record before the State Liquor Authority furnished a substantial basis for its refusal to grant petitioner’s application for a restaurant liquor license.

Since the revocation of a license previously issued to petitioner on a finding that he permitted the premises to become disorderly, a number of applications for a license for the premises were made and denied. Although petitioner has continuously owned and operated the restaurant since the revocation, he caused seven of the applications to be filed in the names of others without disclosing his interest. In other applications made in his own name he concealed Ms record of arrests, two of which involved the sale of alcoholic beverages without a license. These facts amply support a finding that petitioner’s prior record for law observance is such that the granting of his application would create a high degree of risk in the administration and enforcement of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

In such circumstances it may not be said that the action of the Authority in denying petitioner’s application was arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the petition dismissed.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the petition dismissed. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 735, 108 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berlingieri-v-oconnell-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack