Kin Pun Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kin Pun Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

169 A.D.2d 463, 564 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 362

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 463 (Kin Pun Corp. 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

Kin Pun Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 169 A.D.2d 463, 564 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the respondent, New York State Liquor Authority, dated September 20, 1989, which suspended petitioner’s license for 15 days and required a $1,000 bond, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County [Jacqueline Silbermann, J.], entered on or about Nov. 30, 1989) is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements.

Through the testimony of two New York State Troopers, respondent established that the petitioner’s barmaid served alcoholic beverages to two under-aged women, each of whom furnished a false name to the Troopers. The officers located one of the females who had been served a drink in the bar, even though she denied, at the hearing, having been in the bar that night. Under the circumstances, the respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Harry’s Chenango Wine & Liq. v State Liq. Auth., 158 AD2d 804, 805). Further, the penalty imposed was not excessive (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Determination of the respondent, New York State Liquor Authority, dated September 20, 1989, which suspended petitioner’s license for 15 days and required a $1,000 bond, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County [Jacqueline Silbermann, J.], entered on or about Nov. 30, 1989) is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements.

Through the testimony of two New York State Troopers, respondent established that the petitioner’s barmaid served alcoholic beverages to two under-aged women, each of whom furnished a false name to the Troopers. The officers located one of the females who had been served a drink in the bar, even though she denied, at the hearing, having been in the bar that night. Under the circumstances, the respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Harry’s Chenango Wine & Liq. v State Liq. Auth., 158 AD2d 804, 805). Further, the penalty imposed was not excessive (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 463, 564 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kin-pun-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack