Ho-Penn Garage Corp. v. Guggenheimer

New York Court of Appeals

Ho-Penn Garage Corp. v. Guggenheimer

372 N.E.2d 798, 43 N.Y.2d 757, 401 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2548

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 14, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 372 N.E.2d 798 (Ho-Penn Garage Corp. v. Guggenheimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ho-Penn Garage Corp. v. Guggenheimer, 372 N.E.2d 798, 43 N.Y.2d 757, 401 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2548 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The undisputed evidentiary facts in this record together with the inferences which may reasonably be drawn from them provide substantial support for the determination made by the city Department of Consumer Affairs that Ho-Penn Garage Corp., the licensee, had attempted to avoid the suspension imposed by the department, that the operation of the specially formed management corporation was a subterfuge for the licensee, and that the licensee and its principals knowingly permitted and aided the management corporation to operate an unlicensed garage. On the basis of that determination we conclude that the penalty of license revocation is not so shocking to one’s sense of fairness as to warrant judicial intervention.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Judgment affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The undisputed evidentiary facts in this record together with the inferences which may reasonably be drawn from them provide substantial support for the determination made by the city Department of Consumer Affairs that Ho-Penn Garage Corp., the licensee, had attempted to avoid the suspension imposed by the department, that the operation of the specially formed management corporation was a subterfuge for the licensee, and that the licensee and its principals knowingly permitted and aided the management corporation to operate an unlicensed garage. On the basis of that determination we conclude that the penalty of license revocation is not so shocking to one’s sense of fairness as to warrant judicial intervention.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 N.E.2d 798, 43 N.Y.2d 757, 401 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ho-penn-garage-corp-v-guggenheimer-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack