In Good Spirits, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In Good Spirits, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

222 A.D.2d 285, 636 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12857

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 14, 1995·Published

Opinion

—Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority dated August 9, 1994, suspending petitioner’s off-premises liquor license for 40 days (20 days forthwith, 20 days deferred) and imposing a $1,000 bond forfeiture, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Emily Jane Goodman, J.], entered November 3, 1994) is dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 100 (1) and abetted violation of section 102 (3-b) (see, Matter of 2 W. 125th Liqs. v New York State Liq. Auth., 217 AD2d 516; Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v O’Connell, 301 NY 150, 153). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including that the penalty is excessive, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered Feb. 6, 1996.]

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

—Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority dated August 9, 1994, suspending petitioner’s off-premises liquor license for 40 days (20 days forthwith, 20 days deferred) and imposing a $1,000 bond forfeiture, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Emily Jane Goodman, J.], entered November 3, 1994) is dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 100 (1) and abetted violation of section 102 (3-b) (see, Matter of 2 W. 125th Liqs. v New York State Liq. Auth., 217 AD2d 516; Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v O’Connell, 301 NY 150, 153). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including that the penalty is excessive, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered Feb. 6, 1996.]

In Good Spirits, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 222 A.D.2d 285, 636 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

222 A.D.2d 285 (In Good Spirits, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related