Chateau Madrid Restaurant Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Chateau Madrid Restaurant Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

235 N.E.2d 124, 21 N.Y.2d 748, 288 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1653

DecidedJanuary 18, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 235 N.E.2d 124 (Chateau Madrid Restaurant Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chateau Madrid Restaurant Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 235 N.E.2d 124, 21 N.Y.2d 748, 288 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1653 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon the appeal by the licensee: Order affirmed, with costs. We agree with the State Liquor Authority that charges Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were sustained by substantial evidence. It should be noted that the Appellate Division, lacking power to find new facts, may not reverse on the facts. (See Matter of Shell Cr. Sailing Club v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 20 N Y 2d 841.)

All concur, Judge Keating only as to charges Nos. 2 and 3, except Chief Judge Fuld and Judge Bergan who dissent and [751]*751vote to reverse and grant the petition on the ground that the determination of the State Liquor Authority is not supported by substantial evidence. (See, e.g., Matter of Migliaccio v. O’Connell, 307 N. Y. 566; Matter of 2125 Barney’s Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 13 N Y 2d 662.)

Upon the cross appeal by the State Liquor Authority: Cross appeal dismissed upon the ground that the State Liquor Authority is not a party aggrieved. (See, e.g., Oppenheimer v. Oppenheimer, 11 N Y 2d 838.)

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

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

Upon the appeal by the licensee: Order affirmed, with costs. We agree with the State Liquor Authority that charges Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were sustained by substantial evidence. It should be noted that the Appellate Division, lacking power to find new facts, may not reverse on the facts. (See Matter of Shell Cr. Sailing Club v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 20 N Y 2d 841.)

All concur, Judge Keating only as to charges Nos. 2 and 3, except Chief Judge Fuld and Judge Bergan who dissent and [751]*751vote to reverse and grant the petition on the ground that the determination of the State Liquor Authority is not supported by substantial evidence. (See, e.g., Matter of Migliaccio v. O’Connell, 307 N. Y. 566; Matter of 2125 Barney’s Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 13 N Y 2d 662.)

Upon the cross appeal by the State Liquor Authority: Cross appeal dismissed upon the ground that the State Liquor Authority is not a party aggrieved. (See, e.g., Oppenheimer v. Oppenheimer, 11 N Y 2d 838.)

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 N.E.2d 124, 21 N.Y.2d 748, 288 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chateau-madrid-restaurant-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-ny-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack