Genovese v. Hostetter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Genovese v. Hostetter

33 A.D.2d 531, 314 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3229

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 531 (Genovese 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

Genovese v. Hostetter, 33 A.D.2d 531, 314 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously annulled, with costs. Memorandum: It is not disputed that absent the proof received at the administrative hearing as the result of the electronic surveillance of telephones in the licensed premises the determination herein may not be sustained. Contrary to the contention of respondent, counsel for the licensee throughout the hearing objected to the receipt of testimony because of the “illegality” of the order authorizing interruption of telephone communications. Moreover, at the adjourned hearing a copy of the order of Syracuse City Court suppressing all evidence obtained from the wiretaps was received in evidence and the findings affirmatively so state. Matter of Finn’s Liq. Shop v. State Liq. Auth. (24 N Y 2d 647) mandates the annulment of the determination. (Review of determination suspending liquor license and forfeiting bond, transferred by order of Onondaga Special Term.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Bastow, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously annulled, with costs. Memorandum: It is not disputed that absent the proof received at the administrative hearing as the result of the electronic surveillance of telephones in the licensed premises the determination herein may not be sustained. Contrary to the contention of respondent, counsel for the licensee throughout the hearing objected to the receipt of testimony because of the “illegality” of the order authorizing interruption of telephone communications. Moreover, at the adjourned hearing a copy of the order of Syracuse City Court suppressing all evidence obtained from the wiretaps was received in evidence and the findings affirmatively so state. Matter of Finn’s Liq. Shop v. State Liq. Auth. (24 N Y 2d 647) mandates the annulment of the determination. (Review of determination suspending liquor license and forfeiting bond, transferred by order of Onondaga Special Term.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 531, 314 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genovese-v-hostetter-nyappdiv-1969.