EJG Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

EJG Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

213 A.D.2d 924, 624 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3060

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 924 (EJG Corp. v. New York 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

EJG Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 213 A.D.2d 924, 624 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Casey, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

After a hearing, petitioner was found guilty of selling alcoholic beverages to a patron who was under the age of 21. Focusing largely upon the admissibility of certain evidence, petitioner contends that substantial evidence is lacking on the issue of the patron’s age. The technical rules of evidence are inapplicable in administrative hearings (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [1]). Hearsay evidence is not only admissible, it may even serve as the basis for the administrative determination in some circumstances (see, Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). The legal residuum rule is no longer followed (Matter of Shoestring Enters. v Duffy, 145 AD2d 730, 731). Our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence on the issue of the patron’s age to satisfy the substantial evidence test set forth in People ex rel. Vega v Smith (supra, at 139) and 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights (45 NY2d 176, 180).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

—Casey, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

After a hearing, petitioner was found guilty of selling alcoholic beverages to a patron who was under the age of 21. Focusing largely upon the admissibility of certain evidence, petitioner contends that substantial evidence is lacking on the issue of the patron’s age. The technical rules of evidence are inapplicable in administrative hearings (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [1]). Hearsay evidence is not only admissible, it may even serve as the basis for the administrative determination in some circumstances (see, Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). The legal residuum rule is no longer followed (Matter of Shoestring Enters. v Duffy, 145 AD2d 730, 731). Our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence on the issue of the patron’s age to satisfy the substantial evidence test set forth in People ex rel. Vega v Smith (supra, at 139) and 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights (45 NY2d 176, 180).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 924, 624 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ejg-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack