D. H. K. Rest, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

31 A.D.2d 525, 294 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2885
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 19, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 525 (D. H. K. Rest, Inc. 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
D. H. K. Rest, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 31 A.D.2d 525, 294 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Judgment entered December 20,1967, annulling the order of respondent State Liquor Authority of August 9, 1967, and remanding the matter to respondent for further action, unanimously modified on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion to direct that the order of respondent be modified to defer the suspension therein ordered, and otherwise confirmed without costs or disbursements. In an article 78 proceeding Special [526]*526Term annulled an order of the State Liquor Authority which suspended the license of petitioner for a period of 10 days. The respondent’s order followed an administrative hearing. Initially we wish to point out that Special Term’s procedure was improper. The proceeding should have been transferred to this court for initial review of the Authority’s determination (CPLR 7804, subd. [g]). To avoid unnecessary duplication, we have considered the record as if the matter had reached this Court in the prescribed manner. The record shows that petitioner did sell an alcoholic beverage to a minor and so was subject to sanction by respondent. However, the particular circumstances under which the sale was made show that petitioner was without fault and made reasonable efforts to determine the age of the minor. In view of this, we find that the imposition of the suspension was unduly harsh and, having the power to review the sanction (Matter of Mitthauer v. Patterson, 8 N Y 2d 37), we conclude that the suspension should be deferred. Concur— Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McGivern, J J.

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

Related

705 Ninth Avenue Restaurant Corp. v. State Liquor Authority
187 A.D.2d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
596 Main Street Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority
141 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Carmel Lanes, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
109 A.D.2d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Marino v. Melton
65 A.D.2d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
O'Brien v. Barnes Building Co.
85 Misc. 2d 424 (New York Supreme Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.D.2d 525, 294 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/d-h-k-rest-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1968.