Di Carlo v. State Liquor Authority

29 A.D.2d 757, 287 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4532
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 29, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 757 (Di Carlo v. 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
Di Carlo v. State Liquor Authority, 29 A.D.2d 757, 287 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Judgment herein appealed from, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike the first ordering paragraph and so much of the second ordering paragraph as directs the granting of petitioners’ application and the issuance of a license, and, in the exercise of discretion the matter is remanded to respondent for reconsideration with a direction that its eventual determination be held in abeyance for a period of 30 days to afford petitioner Anthony Di Carlo an opportunity to remove his disability by making application for an executive pardon or a certificate of good conduct as provided for in section 126 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. As so modified the judgment appealed from is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. Respondent acted correctly in the first instance and in accordance with the mandate of the law. However, on the facts of this case we believe that petitioner Anthony Di Carlo should be afforded an opportunity to remove the disability. In light of the fact that petitioner Anthony Di Carlo re-enlisted subsequent to incurring of the disability and thereafter received an honorable discharge, there is a reasonable likelihood that he, as a layman, honestly believed the slate had been wiped clean and, consequently, he did not wittingly make a false statement. We incline to the view that had this been the sole infraction respondent might have been more lenient in its determination. [758]*758Concur— Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ. [54 Misc 2d 482.]

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

Related

Kansas City v. Reed
546 S.W.2d 727 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 A.D.2d 757, 287 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-carlo-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1968.