Kimker Rest. Co. v. Gazzara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kimker Rest. Co. v. Gazzara

104 A.D.2d 360, 478 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19829

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

DecidedAugust 6, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 360 (Kimker Rest. Co. v. Gazzara) 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

Kimker Rest. Co. v. Gazzara, 104 A.D.2d 360, 478 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the respondent commissioner canceling petitioner’s liquor license and disapproving petitioner’s renewal application.

Determinations confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

After reviewing the record in this matter we find that the respondent’s determination to foreclose petitioner from maintaining and/or obtaining an on-premises liquor license is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s transgressions against its neighboring community and nuisance like activities are well documented and persisted without explanation after its proprietor acknowledged such occurrences and stated that he would ameliorate the situation. Clearly, the respondent was correct in determining that petitioner should not continue to operate as it had been and that withdrawal of its on-premises liquor license was the appropriate manner of preventing further abuses by petitioner. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Boyers and Lawrence, 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 two determinations of the respondent commissioner canceling petitioner’s liquor license and disapproving petitioner’s renewal application.

Determinations confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

After reviewing the record in this matter we find that the respondent’s determination to foreclose petitioner from maintaining and/or obtaining an on-premises liquor license is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s transgressions against its neighboring community and nuisance like activities are well documented and persisted without explanation after its proprietor acknowledged such occurrences and stated that he would ameliorate the situation. Clearly, the respondent was correct in determining that petitioner should not continue to operate as it had been and that withdrawal of its on-premises liquor license was the appropriate manner of preventing further abuses by petitioner. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 360, 478 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimker-rest-co-v-gazzara-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack