Crismechy Restaurant & Tavern, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crismechy Restaurant & Tavern, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

158 A.D.2d 295, 550 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1093

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 6, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

New York City police officers entered the petitioner’s place of business and witnessed customers drinking alcoholic beverages, on the premises, more than one-half hour after closing time. The petitioner contends that the Authority’s determination lacked substantial evidence because the petitioner’s president testified that no one had consumed alcoholic beverages after 4:30 a.m. The petitioner also urges this court to find that even if it had violated section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the penalty imposed was excessive in view of its prior untarnished record.

After careful review of the facts, we find that the Authority’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty imposed was neither arbitrary, capricious nor shocking to one’s sense of fairness. The testimony of Officer Lazar was quite clear and constitutes substantial evidence [296]*296supporting the determination. Moreover, the nature and extent of the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

New York City police officers entered the petitioner’s place of business and witnessed customers drinking alcoholic beverages, on the premises, more than one-half hour after closing time. The petitioner contends that the Authority’s determination lacked substantial evidence because the petitioner’s president testified that no one had consumed alcoholic beverages after 4:30 a.m. The petitioner also urges this court to find that even if it had violated section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the penalty imposed was excessive in view of its prior untarnished record.

After careful review of the facts, we find that the Authority’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty imposed was neither arbitrary, capricious nor shocking to one’s sense of fairness. The testimony of Officer Lazar was quite clear and constitutes substantial evidence [296]*296supporting the determination. Moreover, the nature and extent of the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Crismechy Restaurant & Tavern, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 158 A.D.2d 295, 550 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

158 A.D.2d 295 (Crismechy Restaurant & Tavern, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related