Dobosen v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dobosen v. Epstein

19 A.D.2d 579, 240 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 23, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 579 (Dobosen v. Epstein) 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

Dobosen v. Epstein, 19 A.D.2d 579, 240 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The record contains substantial evidence to support the Authority’s determination. This proceeding is clearly distinguishable from the fact situation present in Matter of 245 Elmwood Ave. v. New York State Liq. Auth. (14 A D 2d 393, affd. 11 N Y 2d 980). In that case we found that the Hearing Commissioner, despite repeated efforts on the part of the petitioner’s attorney, refused to allow any questions relating to the character of the Authority’s only witness and violated all of “the ordinary rules relating to the eredibilty of witnesses [which] must be observed” (p. 395). In the instant appeal petitioner’s attorney asked one question relating to the legitimacy of the witness’ child, which was properly excluded, and made no further effort to question the witness’ character or credibility. Under these circumstances the Gommissioner’s determination must be confirmed. (Review of determination of respondents suspending for 10 days the restaurant liquor license of petitioner, transferred by order of Erie Special Term.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The record contains substantial evidence to support the Authority’s determination. This proceeding is clearly distinguishable from the fact situation present in Matter of 245 Elmwood Ave. v. New York State Liq. Auth. (14 A D 2d 393, affd. 11 N Y 2d 980). In that case we found that the Hearing Commissioner, despite repeated efforts on the part of the petitioner’s attorney, refused to allow any questions relating to the character of the Authority’s only witness and violated all of “the ordinary rules relating to the eredibilty of witnesses [which] must be observed” (p. 395). In the instant appeal petitioner’s attorney asked one question relating to the legitimacy of the witness’ child, which was properly excluded, and made no further effort to question the witness’ character or credibility. Under these circumstances the Gommissioner’s determination must be confirmed. (Review of determination of respondents suspending for 10 days the restaurant liquor license of petitioner, transferred by order of Erie Special Term.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 579, 240 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dobosen-v-epstein-nyappdiv-1963.