Gala Productions Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gala Productions Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

220 A.D.2d 323, 633 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10392

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 323 (Gala Productions Inc. 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

Gala Productions Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 220 A.D.2d 323, 633 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated July 6, 1994, which suspended petitioner’s liquor license for 15 days [324]*324and imposed a $1,000 bond forfeiture, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [David Saxe, J.], entered November 16, 1994), is dismissed, without costs.

The determination that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (5) by permitting alcoholic beverages to be sold after 4:00 a.m. and consumed after 4:30 a.m. is supported by substantial evidence. At the administrative hearing, one officer testified that he arrived at the bar at approximately 5:10 a.m. and saw people drinking what appeared to be alcoholic drinks. He also testified that he saw people drinking bottles of beer and that one bartender gave a bottle of beer to a patron in exchange for money. The other officer testified that he saw two people drinking what appeared to be alcoholic drinks. Further, the president of petitioner corporation confirmed that the first officer was in the bar sometime around 5:00 a.m.

Petitioner contends that the penalty was unfair, arguing, inter alia, that this is the bar’s first violation. However, more than one hour after the bar should have ceased serving customers, there were over 100 people present, some of whom were drinking. Under the circumstances, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (cf., Matter of Ireland’s Own v New York State Liq. Auth., 165 AD2d 782). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated July 6, 1994, which suspended petitioner’s liquor license for 15 days [324]*324and imposed a $1,000 bond forfeiture, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [David Saxe, J.], entered November 16, 1994), is dismissed, without costs.

The determination that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (5) by permitting alcoholic beverages to be sold after 4:00 a.m. and consumed after 4:30 a.m. is supported by substantial evidence. At the administrative hearing, one officer testified that he arrived at the bar at approximately 5:10 a.m. and saw people drinking what appeared to be alcoholic drinks. He also testified that he saw people drinking bottles of beer and that one bartender gave a bottle of beer to a patron in exchange for money. The other officer testified that he saw two people drinking what appeared to be alcoholic drinks. Further, the president of petitioner corporation confirmed that the first officer was in the bar sometime around 5:00 a.m.

Petitioner contends that the penalty was unfair, arguing, inter alia, that this is the bar’s first violation. However, more than one hour after the bar should have ceased serving customers, there were over 100 people present, some of whom were drinking. Under the circumstances, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (cf., Matter of Ireland’s Own v New York State Liq. Auth., 165 AD2d 782). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 323, 633 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gala-productions-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack