Blue Baby Cocktail Lounge, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blue Baby Cocktail Lounge, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

33 A.D.2d 521, 305 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3207

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 521 (Blue Baby Cocktail Lounge, 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

Blue Baby Cocktail Lounge, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 33 A.D.2d 521, 305 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated April 17, 1969, which disapproved petitioner’s application for a special on-premises liquor license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs. Petitioner has the burden of establishing that respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously in exercising its discretion to refuse the requested license (Matter of Farina v. State Liq. Auth., 20 N Y 2d 484; Matter of Wager v. State Liq. Auth., 4 N Y 2d 465; Matter of Gambino v. State Liq. Auth., 4 A D 2d 37, affd. 4 N Y 2d 997). Petitioner has not discharged that burden; rather, the record discloses evidence reasonably justifying the discretion exercised by respondent in denying to petitioner the license sought by it. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated April 17, 1969, which disapproved petitioner’s application for a special on-premises liquor license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs. Petitioner has the burden of establishing that respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously in exercising its discretion to refuse the requested license (Matter of Farina v. State Liq. Auth., 20 N Y 2d 484; Matter of Wager v. State Liq. Auth., 4 N Y 2d 465; Matter of Gambino v. State Liq. Auth., 4 A D 2d 37, affd. 4 N Y 2d 997). Petitioner has not discharged that burden; rather, the record discloses evidence reasonably justifying the discretion exercised by respondent in denying to petitioner the license sought by it. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 521, 305 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-baby-cocktail-lounge-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack