Kened Bar Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kened Bar Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

99 A.D.2d 511, 471 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16715

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 511 (Kened Bar 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

Kened Bar Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 99 A.D.2d 511, 471 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent, dated February 4,1983, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain charges, suspended its liquor license for 60 days (30 days forthwith and 30 days deferred), and imposed a $1,000 bond claim. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. There was sufficient evidence to support the determination that petitioner (1) maintained a second bar on the premises, in violation of subdivision 4 of section 100 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and (2) abetted the sale of alcohol at an unlicensed premises, in violation of 9 NYCRR 53.1 (h) and subdivision 1 of section 100 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222.) Bracken, J. P., O’Connor, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent, dated February 4,1983, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain charges, suspended its liquor license for 60 days (30 days forthwith and 30 days deferred), and imposed a $1,000 bond claim. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. There was sufficient evidence to support the determination that petitioner (1) maintained a second bar on the premises, in violation of subdivision 4 of section 100 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and (2) abetted the sale of alcohol at an unlicensed premises, in violation of 9 NYCRR 53.1 (h) and subdivision 1 of section 100 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222.) Bracken, J. P., O’Connor, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 511, 471 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kened-bar-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack