Domin v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Domin v. New York State Liquor Authority

216 A.D.2d 297, 627 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5912

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 5, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority, dated March 4,1994, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 102 (3-b) and suspended the petitioner’s liquor license for 20 days, 10 days forthwith and 10 days deferred, and imposed a $1,000 bond claim.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, the determination is annulled, on the law, with costs, and the charge is dismissed.

Contrary to the respondent’s contention, Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 102 (3-b) "pertains only to the sale of liquor and not to the simple delivery of alcoholic beverages” (Matter of CVS Discount Liq. v New York State Liq. Auth., 207 AD2d 891, 893). In this case, the respondent has failed to establish that there was a sale of alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, the petition is granted and the charge against the petitioner is dismissed. Pizzuto, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, 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 March 4,1994, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 102 (3-b) and suspended the petitioner’s liquor license for 20 days, 10 days forthwith and 10 days deferred, and imposed a $1,000 bond claim.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, the determination is annulled, on the law, with costs, and the charge is dismissed.

Contrary to the respondent’s contention, Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 102 (3-b) "pertains only to the sale of liquor and not to the simple delivery of alcoholic beverages” (Matter of CVS Discount Liq. v New York State Liq. Auth., 207 AD2d 891, 893). In this case, the respondent has failed to establish that there was a sale of alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, the petition is granted and the charge against the petitioner is dismissed. Pizzuto, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Domin v. New York State Liquor Authority, 216 A.D.2d 297, 627 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

216 A.D.2d 297 (Domin v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related