Eisenstein v. Marsh Wines & Liquors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eisenstein v. Marsh Wines & Liquors, Inc.

27 A.D.2d 808, 280 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4716

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 808 (Eisenstein v. Marsh Wines & Liquors, Inc.) 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

Eisenstein v. Marsh Wines & Liquors, Inc., 27 A.D.2d 808, 280 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

'Order entered June 30, 1966, denying petitioners’ application to enjoin respondent Marsh Wines & Liquors, Inc., from engaging in the sale of liquor and wines for off-premises consumption, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents. Respondent State Liquor Authority approved respondent Marsh’s application for a new license prior to the rendition of the decision in Matter of Forman v. New York State Liq. Auth., 17 N Y 2d 224; and apparently for that reason did not conform in a technical sense as fully as would now be requisite to the guidelines formulated in the opinion in that case. The facts as established in the record herein, however, impelled approval by the Authority much more persuasively than they did in Forman. [809]*809They clearly “ show forth a rational basis for its conclusion as to 1 public convenience and advantage ’ ” (Forman v. New York State Liq Auth., supra, p. 229). To remit the matter for reconsideration, as urged by petitioner, would be a needless gesture. Concur—■ Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer and Rabin, JJ.

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

'Order entered June 30, 1966, denying petitioners’ application to enjoin respondent Marsh Wines & Liquors, Inc., from engaging in the sale of liquor and wines for off-premises consumption, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents. Respondent State Liquor Authority approved respondent Marsh’s application for a new license prior to the rendition of the decision in Matter of Forman v. New York State Liq. Auth., 17 N Y 2d 224; and apparently for that reason did not conform in a technical sense as fully as would now be requisite to the guidelines formulated in the opinion in that case. The facts as established in the record herein, however, impelled approval by the Authority much more persuasively than they did in Forman. [809]*809They clearly “ show forth a rational basis for its conclusion as to 1 public convenience and advantage ’ ” (Forman v. New York State Liq Auth., supra, p. 229). To remit the matter for reconsideration, as urged by petitioner, would be a needless gesture. Concur—■ Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 808, 280 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisenstein-v-marsh-wines-liquors-inc-nyappdiv-1967.