Conomon v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conomon v. New York State Liquor Authority

254 A.D. 650, 3 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6875

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

DecidedApril 1, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 650 (Conomon 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

Conomon v. New York State Liquor Authority, 254 A.D. 650, 3 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Untermyer, J.

(dissenting). The rule is settled that, although heresay evidence is admissible in such proceedings as these, the charge must be sustained by common-law proof and without relation to hearsay evidence. (Matter of Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 218 N. Y. 435; Matter of Yates v. Mulrooney, 245 App. Div. 146.) In determining whether the charge was sustained, we must, therefore, disregard the statements made to Patrolman Seltenreieh. We must also disregard the minutes of his testimony in the Magistrates’ Court, which in this proceeding would likewise be hearsay and which, furthermore, were not offered in evidence before the Commissioner. Limiting ourselves to the common law proof, all that remains is that on one occasion Seltenreieh observed several women on the premises, who at other times and places he knew to have received from some other restaurant a share of the proceeds of food or drinks. This evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain the charge against the petitioner that he engaged in that practice.

The determination should be annulled.

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

Untermyer, J.

(dissenting). The rule is settled that, although heresay evidence is admissible in such proceedings as these, the charge must be sustained by common-law proof and without relation to hearsay evidence. (Matter of Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 218 N. Y. 435; Matter of Yates v. Mulrooney, 245 App. Div. 146.) In determining whether the charge was sustained, we must, therefore, disregard the statements made to Patrolman Seltenreieh. We must also disregard the minutes of his testimony in the Magistrates’ Court, which in this proceeding would likewise be hearsay and which, furthermore, were not offered in evidence before the Commissioner. Limiting ourselves to the common law proof, all that remains is that on one occasion Seltenreieh observed several women on the premises, who at other times and places he knew to have received from some other restaurant a share of the proceeds of food or drinks. This evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain the charge against the petitioner that he engaged in that practice.

The determination should be annulled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 650, 3 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conomon-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack