Breezy Point Surf Club, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breezy Point Surf Club, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

184 A.D.2d 273, 586 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7817

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

DecidedJune 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 273 (Breezy Point Surf Club, 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

Breezy Point Surf Club, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 184 A.D.2d 273, 586 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.), entered May 23, 1991, which granted petitioner’s application to the extent of directing respondent to approve and issue a renewal of petitioner’s 1991 summer liquor license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An Administrative Law Judge having determined that respondent had failed to establish by substantial evidence the charges brought against petitioner, the respondent’s dilatory action thereafter and subsequent refusal to renew was both arbitrary and capricious, and is without a factual basis (cf., [274]*274Matter of Farina v State Liq. Auth., 20 NY2d 484, 493). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.), entered May 23, 1991, which granted petitioner’s application to the extent of directing respondent to approve and issue a renewal of petitioner’s 1991 summer liquor license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An Administrative Law Judge having determined that respondent had failed to establish by substantial evidence the charges brought against petitioner, the respondent’s dilatory action thereafter and subsequent refusal to renew was both arbitrary and capricious, and is without a factual basis (cf., [274]*274Matter of Farina v State Liq. Auth., 20 NY2d 484, 493). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 273, 586 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breezy-point-surf-club-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack