Jack Meri, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jack Meri, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

37 A.D.2d 597, 323 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3853

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

DecidedJune 14, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 597 (Jack Meri, Inc. v. New York 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

Jack Meri, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 37 A.D.2d 597, 323 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding to review respondent’s determination, dated January 21, 1971, which suspended petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license for 10 days and imposed a $500 demand upon petitioner’s bond. Determination annulled, on the law, with costs, and charges against petitioner dismissed. The findings by respondent that petitioner was guilty of a violation of subdivision 5 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in that alcoholic beverages were sold, offered for sale or given away during prohibited hours, and the other findings related thereto, are not based upon substantial proof. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding to review respondent’s determination, dated January 21, 1971, which suspended petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license for 10 days and imposed a $500 demand upon petitioner’s bond. Determination annulled, on the law, with costs, and charges against petitioner dismissed. The findings by respondent that petitioner was guilty of a violation of subdivision 5 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in that alcoholic beverages were sold, offered for sale or given away during prohibited hours, and the other findings related thereto, are not based upon substantial proof. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 597, 323 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jack-meri-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1971.