Ivy Tavern Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ivy Tavern Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

44 A.D.2d 568, 353 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5527

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 568 (Ivy Tavern Inc. v. State Liquor Authority) 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

Ivy Tavern Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 44 A.D.2d 568, 353 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review respondent’s determination, dated April 11, 1972 and made after a hearing, suspending petitioner’s liquor license for a period of 30 days. Petition granted and determination annulled, on the law, without costs. Petitioner was charged with having “ suffered or permitted ” its premises to become disorderly in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Specifically, the Authority alleged that on one occasion a bartender shot a patron. The bartender was neither a manager nor a shareholder, but only a part-time employee. Petitioner’s principal officer and stockholder was on the premises for 12 hours on the day in question and left prior to this incident. To impute an employee’s illegal activities to the corporate licensee, it must be demonstrated that the manager or a corporate officer had knowledge or the opportunity to acquire knowledge of the illegality (Matter of Triple S. Tavern v. New York State Liq. Auth, 40 A D 2d 522, affd. on opn. at App. Div., 31 N Y 2d 1006). This was not shown here. Petitioner has had a license since 1950 and there have been no previous charges of disorderliness. The bartender had worked at the premises for about three weeks, on weekends only, prior to this incident, with no acts of violence. Under these facts, respondent’s determination cannot stand. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review respondent’s determination, dated April 11, 1972 and made after a hearing, suspending petitioner’s liquor license for a period of 30 days. Petition granted and determination annulled, on the law, without costs. Petitioner was charged with having “ suffered or permitted ” its premises to become disorderly in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Specifically, the Authority alleged that on one occasion a bartender shot a patron. The bartender was neither a manager nor a shareholder, but only a part-time employee. Petitioner’s principal officer and stockholder was on the premises for 12 hours on the day in question and left prior to this incident. To impute an employee’s illegal activities to the corporate licensee, it must be demonstrated that the manager or a corporate officer had knowledge or the opportunity to acquire knowledge of the illegality (Matter of Triple S. Tavern v. New York State Liq. Auth, 40 A D 2d 522, affd. on opn. at App. Div., 31 N Y 2d 1006). This was not shown here. Petitioner has had a license since 1950 and there have been no previous charges of disorderliness. The bartender had worked at the premises for about three weeks, on weekends only, prior to this incident, with no acts of violence. Under these facts, respondent’s determination cannot stand. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 568, 353 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivy-tavern-inc-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1974.