Frascelli v. Hostetter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frascelli v. Hostetter

32 A.D.2d 833, 302 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3537

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

DecidedJune 30, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 833 (Frascelli v. Hostetter) 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

Frascelli v. Hostetter, 32 A.D.2d 833, 302 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated May 20, 1968, which suspended petitioner’s on-premises liquor license for 10 days and demanded payment of petitioner’s $1,000 bond on the ground that petitioner had suffered or permitted gambling on the licensed premises, in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Determination modified, on the law, by striking out the demand for payment of the bond, and confirmed as so modified, without costs. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion the provision for payment of the bond as an additional penalty was excessive. Hnder all the circumstances, the penalty should have been limited to a suspension of the license for a period of 10 days. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated May 20, 1968, which suspended petitioner’s on-premises liquor license for 10 days and demanded payment of petitioner’s $1,000 bond on the ground that petitioner had suffered or permitted gambling on the licensed premises, in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Determination modified, on the law, by striking out the demand for payment of the bond, and confirmed as so modified, without costs. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion the provision for payment of the bond as an additional penalty was excessive. Hnder all the circumstances, the penalty should have been limited to a suspension of the license for a period of 10 days. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 833, 302 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frascelli-v-hostetter-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack