Joseph Victori & Co. Inc. v. Hostetter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph Victori & Co. Inc. v. Hostetter

34 A.D.2d 522, 308 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5333

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 522 (Joseph Victori & Co. Inc. 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

Joseph Victori & Co. Inc. v. Hostetter, 34 A.D.2d 522, 308 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated June 18, 1969, which, in sustaining certain charges against petitioner, directed with respect to charges 1 and 2, a penalty of 30 days’ suspension of license (suspension temporarily deferred) and the imposition of a $2,500 bond claim, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of substituting for the penalty and bond claim, the issuance of a letter of warning; and as so modified the determination is confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While we find substantial evidence to uphold the determination of a technical violation as to charges 1 and 2, we find in the circumstances that the penalty imposed was excessive and should have been limited to a letter of warning as indicated herein. Concur—■ Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated June 18, 1969, which, in sustaining certain charges against petitioner, directed with respect to charges 1 and 2, a penalty of 30 days’ suspension of license (suspension temporarily deferred) and the imposition of a $2,500 bond claim, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of substituting for the penalty and bond claim, the issuance of a letter of warning; and as so modified the determination is confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While we find substantial evidence to uphold the determination of a technical violation as to charges 1 and 2, we find in the circumstances that the penalty imposed was excessive and should have been limited to a letter of warning as indicated herein. Concur—■ Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 522, 308 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-victori-co-inc-v-hostetter-nyappdiv-1970.