Harry Mottsman & Co. v. State Liquor Authority

New York Supreme Court

Harry Mottsman & Co. v. State Liquor Authority

174 Misc. 41, 19 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1739

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 174 Misc. 41 (Harry Mottsman & Co. v. State Liquor Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harry Mottsman & Co. v. State Liquor Authority, 174 Misc. 41, 19 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1739 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Miller, J.

Section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act requires a proceeding of this character to be brought within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner. (See Matter of Nachbar v. Bruchman, 249 App. Div. 723; leave to appeal denied, Id. 814.) On September 21, 1939, the respondents rendered a decision ordering the cancellation of petitioner’s license. That decision has never been withdrawn or modified by the respondents. The present proceeding was not commenced until March 1, 1940, more than four months after the order canceling the petitioner’s license and more than four months after September 22, 1939, the date petitioner received notice of the order of cancellation.

[42]*42The fact that the respondents permitted the petitioner to offer additional evidence did not have the effect of extending the petitioner’s time to review the order of cancellation, particularly in view of the fact that the respondents at the time they authorized petitioner to offer additional evidence, definitely informed petitioner that “ After due and full consideration of the memorandum submitted by you * * * the Authority * * * decided that no modification of its determination of September 21, 1939, was warranted thereby and that the hearing and proceedings resulting in said determination would not be reopened.” (See respondent’s letter of November 3, 1939.) The situation here is similar to that which obtained in Matter of Nachbar v. Bruchnan (supra), where it was held that the time to review the order revoking the petitioner’s license ran from the date of revocation, despite the fact that a hearing was afforded subsequent to the revocation at which further evidence was taken in connection with an application for reconsideration.

The cross-motion to dismiss the petition is, accordingly, granted and the petitioner’s motion denied.

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

Miller, J.

Section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act requires a proceeding of this character to be brought within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner. (See Matter of Nachbar v. Bruchman, 249 App. Div. 723; leave to appeal denied, Id. 814.) On September 21, 1939, the respondents rendered a decision ordering the cancellation of petitioner’s license. That decision has never been withdrawn or modified by the respondents. The present proceeding was not commenced until March 1, 1940, more than four months after the order canceling the petitioner’s license and more than four months after September 22, 1939, the date petitioner received notice of the order of cancellation.

[42]*42The fact that the respondents permitted the petitioner to offer additional evidence did not have the effect of extending the petitioner’s time to review the order of cancellation, particularly in view of the fact that the respondents at the time they authorized petitioner to offer additional evidence, definitely informed petitioner that “ After due and full consideration of the memorandum submitted by you * * * the Authority * * * decided that no modification of its determination of September 21, 1939, was warranted thereby and that the hearing and proceedings resulting in said determination would not be reopened.” (See respondent’s letter of November 3, 1939.) The situation here is similar to that which obtained in Matter of Nachbar v. Bruchnan (supra), where it was held that the time to review the order revoking the petitioner’s license ran from the date of revocation, despite the fact that a hearing was afforded subsequent to the revocation at which further evidence was taken in connection with an application for reconsideration.

The cross-motion to dismiss the petition is, accordingly, granted and the petitioner’s motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 Misc. 41, 19 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-mottsman-co-v-state-liquor-authority-nysupct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack