Joe's Pier 52 Seafood Corp. v. Hostetter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joe's Pier 52 Seafood Corp. v. Hostetter

32 A.D.2d 763, 301 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721

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

DecidedJune 17, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 763 (Joe's Pier 52 Seafood Corp. v. Hostetter) 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

Joe's Pier 52 Seafood Corp. v. Hostetter, 32 A.D.2d 763, 301 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated March 12, 1969, directing the cancellation of petitioner’s liquor license, modified in the exercise of discretion to the extent of reducing the penalty to the issuance of a letter of warning, and as so modified confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We find substantial evidence to uphold the determination of a technical violation. Inquiry on the argument revealed the fact the State Liquor Authority did not wish a remand for the purposes of ascertaining the source of the funds used for the alterations. In the circumstances, we find the penalty imposed excessive. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated March 12, 1969, directing the cancellation of petitioner’s liquor license, modified in the exercise of discretion to the extent of reducing the penalty to the issuance of a letter of warning, and as so modified confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We find substantial evidence to uphold the determination of a technical violation. Inquiry on the argument revealed the fact the State Liquor Authority did not wish a remand for the purposes of ascertaining the source of the funds used for the alterations. In the circumstances, we find the penalty imposed excessive. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 763, 301 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joes-pier-52-seafood-corp-v-hostetter-nyappdiv-1969.