Hornblass v. Bruckman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hornblass v. Bruckman

257 A.D. 916, 12 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8386

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

DecidedMay 17, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 A.D. 916 (Hornblass v. Bruckman) 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

Hornblass v. Bruckman, 257 A.D. 916, 12 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: We find evidence in the record sufficient to support the determination of the State Liquor Authority, and are of the opinion that petitioner was accorded a fair and impartial hearing. We read the order appealed from as a determination that the relator violated section 106, subdivision 9, of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in that he permitted curtains in the windows of the Heensed premises which prevented a clear and fuH view into the interior of the premises from the sidewalk at aU times. While orders should clearly specify the violation on which the order is based (Matter of Gazdun v. Bruckman, 256 App. Div. 882), no point in this regard is made by the relator in this proceeding. AH concur. (Review of a determination of the State Liquor Authority cancelling a Hquor Hcense.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: We find evidence in the record sufficient to support the determination of the State Liquor Authority, and are of the opinion that petitioner was accorded a fair and impartial hearing. We read the order appealed from as a determination that the relator violated section 106, subdivision 9, of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in that he permitted curtains in the windows of the Heensed premises which prevented a clear and fuH view into the interior of the premises from the sidewalk at aU times. While orders should clearly specify the violation on which the order is based (Matter of Gazdun v. Bruckman, 256 App. Div. 882), no point in this regard is made by the relator in this proceeding. AH concur. (Review of a determination of the State Liquor Authority cancelling a Hquor Hcense.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 916, 12 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hornblass-v-bruckman-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack