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

131 A.D.2d 760, 517 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48205

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

DecidedJune 22, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 760 (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, 131 A.D.2d 760, 517 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority, dated December 20, 1985, which suspended the petitioner’s liquor license for 10 days.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

There was substantial evidence that the petitioner violated 9 NYCRR 53.1 (q) by playing excessively loud music during the early morning hours. The penalty imposed was not excessive nor did the respondent abuse its discretion (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; see also, Matter of Jimmy Daze Inn v New York State Liq. Auth., 121 AD2d 447).

We have considered the petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Eiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, 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 the New York State Liquor Authority, dated December 20, 1985, which suspended the petitioner’s liquor license for 10 days.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

There was substantial evidence that the petitioner violated 9 NYCRR 53.1 (q) by playing excessively loud music during the early morning hours. The penalty imposed was not excessive nor did the respondent abuse its discretion (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; see also, Matter of Jimmy Daze Inn v New York State Liq. Auth., 121 AD2d 447).

We have considered the petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Eiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 760, 517 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kened-bar-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack