Carmel Lanes, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carmel Lanes, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

109 A.D.2d 793, 486 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47288

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 793 (Carmel Lanes, 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

Carmel Lanes, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 109 A.D.2d 793, 486 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated November 23, 1983 and made after a hearing, which found that petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 by selling alcoholic beverages to minors, and suspended its on-premises liquor license for 30 days, 15 days forthwith and 15 days deferred.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the respondent State Liquor Authority, adopting the findings of the hearing officer crediting the testimony of witnesses to the effect that petitioner permitted two minors to enter its cocktail lounge and purchase alcoholic beverages, and sustaining the charge against petitioner, was supported by substantial evidence (see, e.g., Matter of Goldpap Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 19 NY2d 968, revg 25 AD2d 642 on dissenting opn at App Div; Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v O’Connell, 301 NY 150). In addition, the penalty imposed, a suspension of petitioner’s on-premises liquor license for a period of 30 days, 15 days to be served forthwith and 15 days deferred, was not disproportionate to the offense (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222), in view of the circumstances of the case, including the fact that this is the second occasion upon which a charge of selling alcoholic beverages to minors has been sustained against petitioner within a period of five years (cf. Matter of Boston Post Rd. Liq. Store v State Liq. Auth., 51 AD2d 569; Matter of Oudemool v New York State Liq. Auth., 50 AD2d 1095; Matter of D.H.K. Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 31 AD2d 525, affd, 28 NY2d 836). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated November 23, 1983 and made after a hearing, which found that petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 by selling alcoholic beverages to minors, and suspended its on-premises liquor license for 30 days, 15 days forthwith and 15 days deferred.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the respondent State Liquor Authority, adopting the findings of the hearing officer crediting the testimony of witnesses to the effect that petitioner permitted two minors to enter its cocktail lounge and purchase alcoholic beverages, and sustaining the charge against petitioner, was supported by substantial evidence (see, e.g., Matter of Goldpap Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 19 NY2d 968, revg 25 AD2d 642 on dissenting opn at App Div; Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v O’Connell, 301 NY 150). In addition, the penalty imposed, a suspension of petitioner’s on-premises liquor license for a period of 30 days, 15 days to be served forthwith and 15 days deferred, was not disproportionate to the offense (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222), in view of the circumstances of the case, including the fact that this is the second occasion upon which a charge of selling alcoholic beverages to minors has been sustained against petitioner within a period of five years (cf. Matter of Boston Post Rd. Liq. Store v State Liq. Auth., 51 AD2d 569; Matter of Oudemool v New York State Liq. Auth., 50 AD2d 1095; Matter of D.H.K. Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 31 AD2d 525, affd, 28 NY2d 836). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 793, 486 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmel-lanes-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack