Jericho Pub, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jericho Pub, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

4 A.D.3d 228, 772 N.Y.S.2d 66, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1843

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 228 (Jericho Pub, 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

Jericho Pub, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 4 A.D.3d 228, 772 N.Y.S.2d 66, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority, dated July 2, 2002, finding petitioner guilty of specified charges, including permitting excessive noise to emanate from, its establishment in violation of 9 NYCRR 53.1 (q), and imposing a $2,500 civil penalty, or, alternatively, a 15-day suspension plus a $1,000 bond claim, 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 [Louise Gruner Gans, J.], entered November 19, 2002) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of at least two witnesses, established that petitioner permitted a continuing pattern of excessive noise to occur in the subject premises in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 118 (3) and 9 NYCRR 53.1 (q). Substantial evidence, including unchallenged testimony that petitioner had paid $50 fines for each of two signage violations, established that petitioner had violated 9 NYCRR 48.3 by failing to comply with local township signage regulations. No basis exists to disturb respondent’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Nardelli, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority, dated July 2, 2002, finding petitioner guilty of specified charges, including permitting excessive noise to emanate from, its establishment in violation of 9 NYCRR 53.1 (q), and imposing a $2,500 civil penalty, or, alternatively, a 15-day suspension plus a $1,000 bond claim, 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 [Louise Gruner Gans, J.], entered November 19, 2002) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of at least two witnesses, established that petitioner permitted a continuing pattern of excessive noise to occur in the subject premises in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 118 (3) and 9 NYCRR 53.1 (q). Substantial evidence, including unchallenged testimony that petitioner had paid $50 fines for each of two signage violations, established that petitioner had violated 9 NYCRR 48.3 by failing to comply with local township signage regulations. No basis exists to disturb respondent’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Nardelli, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 228, 772 N.Y.S.2d 66, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jericho-pub-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack