In re the Arbitration between Middletown Housing Authority & Green

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Middletown Housing Authority & Green

5 A.D.2d 870, 172 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6835

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 870 (In re the Arbitration between Middletown Housing Authority & Green) 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

In re the Arbitration between Middletown Housing Authority & Green, 5 A.D.2d 870, 172 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

This proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority suspending petitioner’s restaurant liquor license has been transferred to this court (Uiv. Prac. Act, § 1296). The license was suspended on findings that petitioner had violated subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholie Beverage Control Law “in that he suffered or permitted a patron to be assaulted therein.” Determination annulled, without costs. The suspension was based on a single assault by petitioner’s bartender committed at a time when petitioner was not present. This was insufficient to sustain the charge that petitioner had suffered or permitted the licensed premises to become disorderly (Matter of Brody v. Rohan, 1 A D 2d 661; Matter of Migliaccio v. O’Connell, 307 N. Y. 566). Nor was the evidence in any way sufficient to justify a finding that petitioner acquiesced in the assault (Matter of Stanwood United v. O’Connell, 283 App. Div. 79, affd. 306 N. Y. 749).

Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

This proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority suspending petitioner’s restaurant liquor license has been transferred to this court (Uiv. Prac. Act, § 1296). The license was suspended on findings that petitioner had violated subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholie Beverage Control Law “in that he suffered or permitted a patron to be assaulted therein.” Determination annulled, without costs. The suspension was based on a single assault by petitioner’s bartender committed at a time when petitioner was not present. This was insufficient to sustain the charge that petitioner had suffered or permitted the licensed premises to become disorderly (Matter of Brody v. Rohan, 1 A D 2d 661; Matter of Migliaccio v. O’Connell, 307 N. Y. 566). Nor was the evidence in any way sufficient to justify a finding that petitioner acquiesced in the assault (Matter of Stanwood United v. O’Connell, 283 App. Div. 79, affd. 306 N. Y. 749).

Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 870, 172 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-middletown-housing-authority-green-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack