Daniels v. McLaughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniels v. McLaughlin

82 A.D.2d 905, 440 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14616

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 29, 1981·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority, dated February 23, [906]*9061981 and made after a hearing, which canceled petitioner’s liquor license and ordered the forfeiture of its bond in the amount of $1,000. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. In our opinion, the cancellation of petitioner’s license and the forfeiture of its $1,000 bond based on the two misdemeanor convictions of its president and principal stockholder for criminal conduct occurring off the licensed premises, was not arbitrary (see Matter of Barton Trucking Corp. v O’Connell, 7 NY2d 299, 313; Matter of 216 Rest, v New York State Liq. Auth., 32 AD2d 564). There was substantial evidence to support the authority’s determination (see Matter of 17 Cameron St. Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 48 NY2d 509). Titone, J.P., Rabin, Hargett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority, dated February 23, [906]*9061981 and made after a hearing, which canceled petitioner’s liquor license and ordered the forfeiture of its bond in the amount of $1,000. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. In our opinion, the cancellation of petitioner’s license and the forfeiture of its $1,000 bond based on the two misdemeanor convictions of its president and principal stockholder for criminal conduct occurring off the licensed premises, was not arbitrary (see Matter of Barton Trucking Corp. v O’Connell, 7 NY2d 299, 313; Matter of 216 Rest, v New York State Liq. Auth., 32 AD2d 564). There was substantial evidence to support the authority’s determination (see Matter of 17 Cameron St. Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 48 NY2d 509). Titone, J.P., Rabin, Hargett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Daniels v. McLaughlin, 82 A.D.2d 905, 440 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

82 A.D.2d 905 (Daniels v. McLaughlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related