Feldman v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feldman v. State Liquor Authority

54 A.D.2d 1134, 388 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15131

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 1134 (Feldman 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

Feldman v. State Liquor Authority, 54 A.D.2d 1134, 388 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition unanimously granted, with costs, and determination of State Liquor Authority annulled. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding petitioner seeks to annul a determination of the State Liquor Authority. While the record of the hearing discloses a sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor in violation of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, it contains no evidence identifying or connecting the sale with petitioner’s licensed premises. Thus respondent’s administrative determination suspending petitioner’s retail package liquor license for 10 days is not supported by substantial evidence as required by CPLR 7803 (subd 4) (see Matter of Yates v Mulrooney, 245 App Div 146). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Erie Supreme Court.) Present&emdash;Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Mahoney, Dillon and Goldman, JJ.

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

Petition unanimously granted, with costs, and determination of State Liquor Authority annulled. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding petitioner seeks to annul a determination of the State Liquor Authority. While the record of the hearing discloses a sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor in violation of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, it contains no evidence identifying or connecting the sale with petitioner’s licensed premises. Thus respondent’s administrative determination suspending petitioner’s retail package liquor license for 10 days is not supported by substantial evidence as required by CPLR 7803 (subd 4) (see Matter of Yates v Mulrooney, 245 App Div 146). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Erie Supreme Court.) Present&emdash;Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Mahoney, Dillon and Goldman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 1134, 388 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feldman-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack