Conservative Grouping Corp. v. Epstein

180 N.E.2d 58, 10 N.Y.2d 956
New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 30, 1961·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While we believe that the bartender in charge of the licensed premises was, at the time, a responsible agent or representative of the petitioner, we regard the evidence as to whether he knew or should have known of the prescribed activities in the licensed premises as too insubstantial to sustain the charge that the licensee had suffered or permitted gambling on the premises in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (§ 106, .subd. 6; Matter of Hoban & Sullivan v. New York State Liq. Auth., 304 N. Y. 712; Matter of Lynch’s Bldrs. Restaurant v. O’Connell, 303 N. Y. 408; Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v. O’Connell, 301 N. Y. 150).

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Judges Dye, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Foster concur in Per Curiam opinion; Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld and Burke dissent and vote to reverse and to reinstate the determination of the State Liquor Authority upon the ground that it is supported by substantial evidence.

Order affirmed.

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

Conservative Grouping Corp. v. Epstein, 180 N.E.2d 58, 10 N.Y.2d 956 (N.Y. 1961).

180 N.E.2d 58 (Conservative Grouping Corp. v. Epstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cuti v. Roth
50 A.D.2d 1044 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)