Conservative Grouping Corp. v. Epstein

180 N.E.2d 58, 10 N.Y.2d 956
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 30, 1961
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 N.E.2d 58, 10 N.Y.2d 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conservative-grouping-corp-v-epstein-ny-1961.