Guastavino v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guastavino v. State Liquor Authority

145 A.D.2d 324, 535 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12965

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 324 (Guastavino 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

Guastavino v. State Liquor Authority, 145 A.D.2d 324, 535 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on September 25, 1987, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to the extent of finding the determination of respondent State Liquor Authority directing the forfeiture of petitioner’s $1,000 compliance bond to be excessive and vacating and annulling that portion of the penalty imposed, leaving the 10-day deferred license forfeiture as the sole penalty, is unanimously reversed on the law and the penalty imposed by respondent reinstated, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner Joseph Guastavino was found guilty by respondent State Liquor Authority of having, on July 13, 1984, suffered or permitted gambling on his licensed premises in violation of subdivision (6) of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. In that regard, one of respondent’s investigators had discovered a Joker Poker machine operating in petitioner’s establishment. The penalty imposed against petitioner was a 10-day deferred suspension of its license and forfeiture of its $1,000 compliance bond. The Supreme Court held that this penalty is excessive to the extent that it requires the bond forfeiture. We disagree for the reasons stated in this court’s opinion in Matter of Norwood Pub v State Liq. Auth. (145 AD2d 322 [decided herewith]). Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

— Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on September 25, 1987, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to the extent of finding the determination of respondent State Liquor Authority directing the forfeiture of petitioner’s $1,000 compliance bond to be excessive and vacating and annulling that portion of the penalty imposed, leaving the 10-day deferred license forfeiture as the sole penalty, is unanimously reversed on the law and the penalty imposed by respondent reinstated, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner Joseph Guastavino was found guilty by respondent State Liquor Authority of having, on July 13, 1984, suffered or permitted gambling on his licensed premises in violation of subdivision (6) of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. In that regard, one of respondent’s investigators had discovered a Joker Poker machine operating in petitioner’s establishment. The penalty imposed against petitioner was a 10-day deferred suspension of its license and forfeiture of its $1,000 compliance bond. The Supreme Court held that this penalty is excessive to the extent that it requires the bond forfeiture. We disagree for the reasons stated in this court’s opinion in Matter of Norwood Pub v State Liq. Auth. (145 AD2d 322 [decided herewith]). Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 324, 535 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guastavino-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack