Glintenkamp v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glintenkamp v. O'Connell

271 A.D.2d 795

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 795 (Glintenkamp v. O'Connell) 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

Glintenkamp v. O'Connell, 271 A.D.2d 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. Appeal from an order directing the State Liquor Authority to issue a retail liquor license to the petitioners. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the petition dismissed, without costs. On the facts in this record it may not be held as a matter of law that the State Liquor Authority acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or in bad faith. It may not be said that a reasonable basis does not appear in this record upon which the authority could have reached its decision. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board empowered by statute to exercise discretion in carrying out the purposes of section 2 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. Appeal from an order directing the State Liquor Authority to issue a retail liquor license to the petitioners. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the petition dismissed, without costs. On the facts in this record it may not be held as a matter of law that the State Liquor Authority acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or in bad faith. It may not be said that a reasonable basis does not appear in this record upon which the authority could have reached its decision. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board empowered by statute to exercise discretion in carrying out the purposes of section 2 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glintenkamp-v-oconnell-nyappdiv-1946.