Friendly Tavern Co. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friendly Tavern Co. v. State Liquor Authority

26 A.D.2d 802, 274 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 802 (Friendly Tavern Co. 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

Friendly Tavern Co. v. State Liquor Authority, 26 A.D.2d 802, 274 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination canceling petitioner’s liquor license annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements and the matter remanded, in the exercise of discretion, for a hearing on the ground that a short adjournment should have been granted in the circumstances. Concur-—McNally, Stevens and Capozzoli, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., dissents and- votes to confirm in the following dissenting memorandum: Petitioner had ample notice and opportunity to comply with the administrative regulations governing adjournments and representation by counsel. Moreover, the rule in Matter of Leogrande v. State Liq. Auth. (25 A D 2d 225) is inapplicable. There was waiver with respect to the proffered evidence in this matter. The record does not show that the alleged suppression occurred. And assuming that the alleged suppression occurred, as is asserted in petitioner’s reply brief, there is nothing anywhere to suggest, let alone show, that the suppression did or would have required the exclusion of all of the competent evidence received on behalf of the Authority, as was the situation in the Leogrande case.

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

Determination canceling petitioner’s liquor license annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements and the matter remanded, in the exercise of discretion, for a hearing on the ground that a short adjournment should have been granted in the circumstances. Concur-—McNally, Stevens and Capozzoli, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., dissents and- votes to confirm in the following dissenting memorandum: Petitioner had ample notice and opportunity to comply with the administrative regulations governing adjournments and representation by counsel. Moreover, the rule in Matter of Leogrande v. State Liq. Auth. (25 A D 2d 225) is inapplicable. There was waiver with respect to the proffered evidence in this matter. The record does not show that the alleged suppression occurred. And assuming that the alleged suppression occurred, as is asserted in petitioner’s reply brief, there is nothing anywhere to suggest, let alone show, that the suppression did or would have required the exclusion of all of the competent evidence received on behalf of the Authority, as was the situation in the Leogrande case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 802, 274 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friendly-tavern-co-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1966.